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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).