From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755549AbdCTO64 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:58:56 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:40166 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1755020AbdCTO6o (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:58:44 -0400
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:58:03 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/17] arm64: arch_timer: Workaround for Cortex-A73
 erratum 858921
Message-ID: <20170320145803.GI31213@leverpostej>
References: <20170306112622.13853-1-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
 <20170306112622.13853-16-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170306112622.13853-16-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:26:20AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Cortex-A73 (all versions) counter read can return a wrong value
> when the counter crosses a 32bit boundary.
> 
> The workaround involves performing the read twice, and to return
> one or the other depending on whether a transition has taken place.
 
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_858921
> +static u64 notrace arm64_858921_read_cntvct_el0(void)
> +{
> +	u64 _old, _new;
> +
> +	_old = read_sysreg(cntvct_el0);
> +	_new = read_sysreg(cntvct_el0);
> +	return (((_old ^ _new) >> 32) & 1) ? _old : _new;
> +}
> +#endif

Given this is a static inline, I think we can drop the underscores here.

Thanks,
Mark.