From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:29:21 +0000
Subject: [PATCH v19 10/15] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Refactor
 the timer init code to prepare for GTDT
In-Reply-To: <b977f47b-a85e-d4d5-666c-b8c9cd21c25e@codeaurora.org>
References: <20161221064603.11830-1-fu.wei@linaro.org>
 <20161221064603.11830-11-fu.wei@linaro.org>
 <20170116183032.GL5908@leverpostej>
 <CADyBb7tFaSshUmZsJbNO2tnbqAKEii39NQVfcx5CqDiDsK5OJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b977f47b-a85e-d4d5-666c-b8c9cd21c25e@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <20170117122921.GE11939@leverpostej>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 06:18:12AM -0600, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Fu Wei wrote:
> >if (i >= ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES) {
> >        pr_err(FW_BUG "too many frames, ARMv8 spec only allows 8.\n");
> 
> pr_err(FW_BUG "too many frames, ARMv8 spec only allows %u.\n",
> 	ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES);

While I don't see ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES changing, this would be
nicer to ensure the result obviously matches.

As for wording, I'd perfer:

	pr_err(FW_BUG "too many frames, only %u are permitted.\n",
	       ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES);

... so as to avoid any confusion between spec versions and so on. We can
reconsider the message if/when that changes.

Thanks,
Mark.