Hi Oleksandr,
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:00 PM Oleksandr <olekstysh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 13.05.19 18:13, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> So, if the DT bindings for the counter module is not an option (if I
> >> correctly understood a discussion pointed by Geert in another letter),
> >> we should probably prevent all timer code here from being executed if
> >> PSCI is in use.
> >> What I mean is to return to [2], but with the modification to use
> >> psci_smp_available() helper as an indicator of PSCI usage.
> >>
> >> Julien, Geert, what do you think?
> > Yes, that sounds good to me.
> >
> > Note that psci_smp_available() seems to return false if CONFIG_SMP=n,
> > so checking for that is not sufficient to avoid crashes when running a
> > uniprocessor kernel on a PSCI-enabled system.
>
> Indeed, you are right.
>
>
> Nothing than just check for psci_ops.cpu_on == NULL directly comes to
> mind...
>
> Have already checked with CONFIG_SMP=n, it works.
>
> Sounds ok?
Fine for me, thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
