From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754129AbaIKJ6S (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 05:58:18 -0400 Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:49349 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753158AbaIKJ6R (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 05:58:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 10:57:25 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Doug Anderson Cc: Catalin Marinas , Mark Rutland , Olof Johansson , Stephen Boyd , Sonny Rao , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Russell King , Sudeep Holla , Daniel Lezcano , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: arch_timer: Fix code to use physical timers when requested Message-ID: <20140911095725.GC5045@arm.com> References: <20140828093505.GC14650@leverpostej> <20140908135436.GC22717@arm.com> <20140910173401.GG1710@arm.com> <20140910184652.GP1710@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:50:16PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > > If `where we're at' is trying to boot an ARMv7 product, then you can boot in > > secure svc and lose virtualisation support. Looking forward to ARMv8, this > > isn't going to work, so I'd encourage you to start thinking about getting > > a working bootloader as a requirement. > > Yup, definitely on the same page now. With everyone working on this > I'd imagine that there will be some nice standards worked out by the > time real ARMv8 is ready to ship? > > ...so would you say that you're in support of landing the patch to > allow physical counters? I know Olof has Acked the patch above, but > it's nice if there's general agreement that it's OK. I'm in favour of fixing the regression, yes. What I didn't understand from the patch is where arch_timer_use_virtual is set to false for your machine, as we need to be careful not to regress arm64 (the vdso uses the virtual counter there). Will