From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robin.murphy@arm.com (Robin Murphy) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 15:34:54 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v2] clocksource/arm_arch_timer: Enable and verify MMIO access In-Reply-To: <56B4C072.3040409@linaro.org> References: <71bf617f4083b116b2aeab24f13fc5fed99a816f.1454327031.git.robin.murphy@arm.com> <20160201195816.GL4848@codeaurora.org> <56B4BFC8.6050201@arm.com> <56B4C072.3040409@linaro.org> Message-ID: <56B4C11E.1040702@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 05/02/16 15:32, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 02/05/2016 04:29 PM, Robin Murphy wrote: >> 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? > > I will be reviewing timers patches next week. I will take care of this one. Cool, thanks for the confirmation. Robin. > > Thanks > -- Daniel > > >