On 20/09/13 05:57, Yuvaraj Kumar wrote: > Resending it as it bounced from kernel mailing group > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> [adding lakml] >> >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:11:53AM +0100, Yuvaraj Kumar C D wrote: >>> Without the "clock-frequency" property in arch timer node, could able >>> to see the below crash dump. >> >> Why does this cause the below crash specifically? What is CNTFRQ reading >> as? > Return value of arch_timer_get_cntfrq() is 0 >> >> Your firmware or bootloader should set CNTFRQ -- setting the >> clock-frequency is a work-around for buggy firmware/bootloaders that >> should be avoided as far as possible. > Why kernel should depend on bootloader/firmware to set CNTFRQ? Any > specific reasons? Because the kernel can't set it if running non-secure. Only secure mode can do this (see the ARM ARM for details). > Should'nt be indepenedent each other(kernel and bootloader/firmware)? In my book, the firmware is responsible for setting up the platform in a sane state. Leaving CNTFRQ in its UNKNOWN reset state is a bug, and your firmware should program it on each CPU. Same goes for CNTVOFF, which should be set to a common value (preferably zero). M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |