From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: remove check for generic timer support for arm64 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 15:50:49 +0100 Message-ID: <538C8F49.4090007@linaro.org> References: <1401698241-20722-1-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com> <1401720486.28761.15.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1401720486.28761.15.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell , vijay.kilari@gmail.com Cc: Prasun.Kapoor@caviumnetworks.com, vijaya.kumar@caviumnetworks.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/02/2014 03:48 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 14:07 +0530, vijay.kilari@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Vijaya Kumar K >> >> arm64 always supports generic timer. So check is not required >> for arm64. For platforms which supports only aarch64 mode this >> check always passes and panics >> >> Signed-off-by: Vijaya Kumar K >> --- >> xen/arch/arm/time.c | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/time.c b/xen/arch/arm/time.c >> index 4c3e1a6..801c130 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/arm/time.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/time.c >> @@ -138,8 +138,10 @@ int __init init_xen_time(void) >> panic("Timer: Cannot initialize platform timer"); >> >> /* Check that this CPU supports the Generic Timer interface */ >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_32 >> if ( !cpu_has_gentimer ) >> panic("CPU does not support the Generic Timer v1 interface"); >> +#endif > > Coming at this form a different angle (ignoring feature flags etc), we > have by this point already been told by the device tree that a generic > timer is present (we panic if we don't find a node). So this check is a > bit redundant (I suppose it would catch people with an incorrect DT, but > I expect we'd figure that out pretty soon even without this check). > > Perhaps we should just remove this check altogether? Or the suggestion > to #define it to 1 on arm64 would also work. I though about removing this bit... but I'm not sure if ACPI will give us the necessary information for the generic timer. Regards, -- Julien Grall