From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: arch_timer: Add device tree binding for hisilicon-161x01 erratum Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:16:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20161024111608.GG15620@leverpostej> References: <962ea92f-870b-e1d0-5bb7-1a6d66c35122@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <962ea92f-870b-e1d0-5bb7-1a6d66c35122-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Ding Tianhong Cc: Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Marc Zyngier , Scott Wood , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Shawn Guo , stuart.yoder-3arQi8VN3Tc@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:21:10AM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: > +- hisilicon,erratum-161x01 : A boolean property. Indicates the presence of > + QorIQ erratum 161201, which says that reading the counter is > + unreliable unless the small range of value is returned by back-to-back reads. > + This also affects writes to the tval register, due to the implicit > + counter read. Is "161x01" the *exact* erratum number, or is the 'x' a wildcard? Please use the *exact* erratum number, even if that means we have to list several. Is "161x01" an *erratum* number, or the *part* number of affected devices? Thanks, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html