Hi Mark,
On 19 November 2016 at 02:52, Mark Rutland mark.rutland@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:48:58PM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
From: Fu Wei fu.wei@linaro.org
The patch fix a potential bug about arch_timer_uses_ppi in arch_timer_register. On ARM64, we don't use ARCH_TIMER_PHYS_SECURE_PPI in Linux, so we will just igorne it in init code.
That's not currently the case. I assume you mean we will in later patches? If so, please make that clear in the commit message.
If arch_timer_uses_ppi is ARCH_TIMER_PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI, the orignal code of arch_timer_uses_ppi may go wrong.
How? What specifically happens?
We don't currently assign ARCH_TIMER_PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI to arch_timer_uses_ppi, so I assume a later patch changes this. This change should be folded into said patch; it doesn't make sense in isolation.
yes, this patch is a preparation for the next which may set arch_timer_use_ppi as ARCH_TIMER_PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI. So you are right, I will merge this into the next and mention this change in the commit message.
Great thanks
Thanks, Mark.
Signed-off-by: Fu Wei fu.wei@linaro.org
drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c index dd1040d..6de164f 100644 --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c @@ -699,7 +699,7 @@ static int __init arch_timer_register(void) case ARCH_TIMER_PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI: err = request_percpu_irq(ppi, arch_timer_handler_phys, "arch_timer", arch_timer_evt);
if (!err && arch_timer_ppi[ARCH_TIMER_PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI]) {
if (!err && arch_timer_has_nonsecure_ppi()) { ppi = arch_timer_ppi[ARCH_TIMER_PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI]; err = request_percpu_irq(ppi, arch_timer_handler_phys, "arch_timer", arch_timer_evt);-- 2.7.4