On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:11:20AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 09:32:55AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 03:58:31PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 11:45:10AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote: > > [...] > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c > > > > index aa4ec53281ce..6cc8aff83805 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c > > > > @@ -833,7 +833,11 @@ static void arch_timer_evtstrm_enable(int divider) > > > > cntkctl |= (divider << ARCH_TIMER_EVT_TRIGGER_SHIFT) > > > > | ARCH_TIMER_VIRT_EVT_EN; > > > > arch_timer_set_cntkctl(cntkctl); > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64 > > > > + cpu_set_named_feature(EVTSTRM); > > > > +#else > > > > elf_hwcap |= HWCAP_EVTSTRM; > > > > +#endif > > > > > > I wonder whether we can have a generic definition for this: > > > > > > #define cpu_set_named_feature(x) (elf_hwcap |= HWCAP_ ## x) > > > > You mean specific to arm32? > > > > I will do this, along with a cpu_get_named_feature - but I think I'd prefer > > to do this in a separate series. > > Yes, we could do that. We could also do it more widely, but it's > probably not worth the overhead of doing it. I had considered this as well but also determined that it wouldn't give much gain. Thanks, Andrew Murray > > [...] > > Cheers > ---Dave
