| Message ID | 1479304148-2965-6-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
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. 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 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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 >>
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);