From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:34:28 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v4] twd: Don't set CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP unconditionally In-Reply-To: <5616B503.6090408@free.fr> References: <56123BD0.8010005@sigmadesigns.com> <56124035.6080107@sigmadesigns.com> <561247DF.1000308@sigmadesigns.com> <20151005103539.GC19064@leverpostej> <5612649C.5020401@sigmadesigns.com> <20151008171616.GG7275@leverpostej> <5616AA2D.2070101@free.fr> <20151008175734.GH7275@leverpostej> <5616B503.6090408@free.fr> Message-ID: <20151008183428.GI7275@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 08:25:07PM +0200, Mason wrote: > On 08/10/2015 19:57, Mark Rutland wrote: > >> Is it possible that twd_local_timer_common_register() would be > >> called more than once? > >> > >> twd_local_timer_register() guards against multiple invocations, > >> but twd_local_timer_of_register() doesn't (but maybe there is > >> some guarantee from OF, or it's invalid to have multiple > >> "arm,cortex-a9-twd-timer" strings in the DT). > > > > It does appear that were you to have have two or more > > "arm,cortex-a9-twd-timer" nodes in the DT, things would go wrong. As far > > as I am aware, that would result in multiple calls to > > twd_local_timer_of_register. > > > > I don't think it would ever be valid to have two nodes for this > > particular device, but it's probably worth having the same check as > > twd_local_timer_register does, with a warning that there was more than > > one such node logged to the console. > > Hmmm, I think I'll do it in a follow-up patch, once Felipe's > revert hits mainline. Sure, this is certainly independent of the CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP patch. Thanks, Mark.