Hi Ionela, Valentin
On 2/11/20 6:45 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx>
Using an arch timer with a frequency of less than 1MHz can result in an
incorrect functionality of the system which assumes a reasonable rate.
One example is the use of activity monitors for frequency invariance
which uses the rate of the arch timer as the known rate of the constant
cycle counter in computing its ratio compared to the maximum frequency
of a CPU. For arch timer frequencies less than 1MHz this ratio could
end up being 0 which is an invalid value for its use.
Therefore, warn if the arch timer rate is below 1MHz which contravenes
the recommended architecture interval of 1 to 50MHz.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
index 9a5464c625b4..4faa930eabf8 100644
--- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
+++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
@@ -885,6 +885,17 @@ static int arch_timer_starting_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
return 0;
}
+static int validate_timer_rate(void)
+{
+ if (!arch_timer_rate)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ /* Arch timer frequency < 1MHz can cause trouble */
+ WARN_ON(arch_timer_rate < 1000000);
I don't see a big value of having a patch just to add one extra warning,
in a situation which we handle in our code with in 6/7 with:
+ if (!ratio) {
+ pr_err("System timer frequency too low.\n");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
Furthermore, the value '100000' here is because of our code and
calculation in there, so it does not belong to arch timer. Someone
might ask why it's not 200000 or a define in our header...
Or questions asking why do you warn when that arch timer and cpu is not
AMU capable...
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
/*
* For historical reasons, when probing with DT we use whichever (non-zero)
* rate was probed first, and don't verify that others match. If the first node
@@ -900,7 +911,7 @@ static void arch_timer_of_configure_rate(u32 rate, struct device_node *np)
arch_timer_rate = rate;
/* Check the timer frequency. */
- if (arch_timer_rate == 0)
+ if (validate_timer_rate())
pr_warn("frequency not available\n");
}
@@ -1594,9 +1605,10 @@ static int __init arch_timer_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
* CNTFRQ value. This *must* be correct.
*/
arch_timer_rate = arch_timer_get_cntfrq();
- if (!arch_timer_rate) {
+ ret = validate_timer_rate();
+ if (ret) {
pr_err(FW_BUG "frequency not available.\n");
- return -EINVAL;
+ return ret;
}
arch_timer_uses_ppi = arch_timer_select_ppi();
Lastly, this is arch timer.
To increase chances of getting merge soon, I would recommend to drop
the patch from this series.
Regards,
Lukasz
