From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robin.murphy@arm.com (Robin Murphy) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 15:29:12 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v2] clocksource/arm_arch_timer: Enable and verify MMIO access In-Reply-To: <20160201195816.GL4848@codeaurora.org> References: <71bf617f4083b116b2aeab24f13fc5fed99a816f.1454327031.git.robin.murphy@arm.com> <20160201195816.GL4848@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <56B4BFC8.6050201@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/02/16 19:58, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 02/01, Robin Murphy wrote: >> So far, we have been blindly assuming that having access to a >> memory-mapped timer frame implies that the individual elements of that >> frame frame are already enabled. Whilst it's the firmware's job to give >> us non-secure access to frames in the first place, we should not rely >> on implementations always being generous enough to also configure CNTACR >> for those non-secure frames (e.g. [1]). >> >> Explicitly enable feature-level access per-frame, and verify that the >> access we want is really implemented before trying to make use of it. >> >> [1]:https://github.com/ARM-software/tf-issues/issues/170 >> >> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy >> --- > > Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd > Tested-by: Stephen Boyd Great, thanks! Daniel, am I right in hoping this is something you'll pick up, or should I be resending it to arm-soc? Thanks, Robin. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754749AbcBEP3X (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Feb 2016 10:29:23 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:48583 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754297AbcBEP3V (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Feb 2016 10:29:21 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clocksource/arm_arch_timer: Enable and verify MMIO access To: Stephen Boyd , daniel.lezcano@linaro.org References: <71bf617f4083b116b2aeab24f13fc5fed99a816f.1454327031.git.robin.murphy@arm.com> <20160201195816.GL4848@codeaurora.org> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mark.rutland@arm.com From: Robin Murphy Message-ID: <56B4BFC8.6050201@arm.com> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 15:29:12 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160201195816.GL4848@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/02/16 19:58, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 02/01, Robin Murphy wrote: >> So far, we have been blindly assuming that having access to a >> memory-mapped timer frame implies that the individual elements of that >> frame frame are already enabled. Whilst it's the firmware's job to give >> us non-secure access to frames in the first place, we should not rely >> on implementations always being generous enough to also configure CNTACR >> for those non-secure frames (e.g. [1]). >> >> Explicitly enable feature-level access per-frame, and verify that the >> access we want is really implemented before trying to make use of it. >> >> [1]:https://github.com/ARM-software/tf-issues/issues/170 >> >> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy >> --- > > Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd > Tested-by: Stephen Boyd Great, thanks! Daniel, am I right in hoping this is something you'll pick up, or should I be resending it to arm-soc? Thanks, Robin.