On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:48:58PM +0800, fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
