From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:18:20 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v6 2/6] ARM: allow user access to arch timer virtual counter In-Reply-To: <5357FB2F.8060002@mentor.com> References: <10ed3f4cfce13a80a9a3070934fc0e31619a1242.1398213562.git.nathan_lynch@mentor.com> <20140423173244.GL5649@arm.com> <5357FB2F.8060002@mentor.com> Message-ID: <20140424101820.GB19564@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 06:41:03PM +0100, Nathan Lynch wrote: > On 04/23/2014 12:32 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 01:48:53AM +0100, Nathan Lynch wrote: > >> As ARM64 does. This is a necessary prerequisite for implementing > >> gettimeofday and clock_gettime in a vdso. > > > > Doesn't this change make arch_counter_set_user_access identical for arm and > > arm64? In which case, we could move it into the driver itself. > > True; I had considered this but wasn't sure how it could be staged. > > Would a single patch updating arch/arm64, arch/arm, and > drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c be okay? I'd probably modify arm_arch_timer.c to have it's own implementation, then have follow-up patches removing the arch-private definitions. You could probably deal with arch_timer_evtstrm_enable at the same time. Will