From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: acpi/gtdt: validate CNTFRQ after having enabled the frame
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 12:31:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170801113120.GD9347@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu8jD_oJV138qWGQm2dOnqJTSxSNNQ7xFCPtb4efyR9n1Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:09:32PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 1 August 2017 at 11:53, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 04:10:53PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> So move the validation of CNTFRQ into the loop that iterates over the
> >> timers to find the best frame, and only validate the frame that has
> >> been selected as the best frame (and has thus been enabled).
> >
> > The intention here was to verify all frames, such that if/when we choose
> > to use other frames in future, CNTFRQ will be valid. This is stricter
> > than the DT case, which I'd also make stricter were it not for legacy.
> >
> > So while that check needs to be corrected, I'd like to retain the check
> > for all frames.
>
> The point here is that CNTFRQ cannot differ between frames. It either
> returns the value of the base frame or RES0.
Sorry; you had mentioned this before, and I had forgotten.
I'm under the impression that the ARM ARM may be misleading (and
potentially erroneous) in that regard. In the past I had been told that
each instance of a CNTFRQ register was independent, and each must be
writeable for system initialization.
I will try to get that clarified ASAP.
Thanks,
Mark.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-01 11:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-24 15:10 [PATCH] arm64: acpi/gtdt: validate CNTFRQ after having enabled the frame Ard Biesheuvel
2017-08-01 10:53 ` Mark Rutland
2017-08-01 11:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-08-01 11:31 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2017-08-01 14:57 ` Mark Rutland
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170801113120.GD9347@leverpostej \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.