From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com (Laurent Pinchart) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 02:29:16 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: Don't wait for probe of unexisting timers In-Reply-To: <20141023174911.GA20121@leverpostej> References: <1414085558-2148-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> <54493D46.6040202@codeaurora.org> <20141023174911.GA20121@leverpostej> Message-ID: <2242736.dh2oR22Axq@avalon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Mark, On Thursday 23 October 2014 18:49:11 Mark Rutland wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 06:39:18PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 10/23/2014 10:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > Commit c387f07e6205 ("clocksource: arm_arch_timer: Discard unavailable > > > timers correctly") attempted to avoid waiting for probe of disabled > > > timers, but got its condition check wrong and resulted in the driver > > > waiting for probe of timers not present in DT at all. Fix it. > > > > > > Fixes: c387f07e6205 ("clocksource: arm_arch_timer: Discard unavailable > > > timers correctly") Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart > > > --- > > > > You're the third one. I like how the function has been renamed in this > > patch. arch_timer_probed() is not accurately describing the intention of > > the code so arch_timer_need_probe() reads better. Maybe your rename of > > the function can be squashed into Marc's patch. > > I'm happy with that as a cleanup, but right now I'd just like to see > Marc's patch hit mainline as-is. It's days old and tested, and it would > be nice to avoid another potential bug (not that I believe this patch is > in any way broken). Sure. I'll resend my patch as a cleanup on top of Marc's fix. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart