From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fu Wei Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 05/15] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: fix a bug in arch_timer_register about arch_timer_uses_ppi Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:32:21 +0800 Message-ID: References: <1479304148-2965-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <1479304148-2965-6-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <20161118185252.GI1197@leverpostej> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20161118185252.GI1197@leverpostej> Sender: linux-watchdog-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Daniel Lezcano , Thomas Gleixner , Marc Zyngier , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Sudeep Holla , Hanjun Guo , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Linaro ACPI Mailman List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List , rruigrok-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org, "Abdulhamid, Harb" , Christopher Covington , Timur Tabi , G Gregory , Al Stone , Jon Masters List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hi Mark, On 19 November 2016 at 02:52, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:48:58PM +0800, fu.wei-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org wrote: >> From: Fu Wei >> >> 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. yes, this patch is a preparation for the next which may set arch_timer_use_ppi as ARCH_TIMER_PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI. So you are right, I will merge this into the next and mention this change in the commit message. Great thanks > > Thanks, > Mark. > >> Signed-off-by: Fu Wei >> --- >> 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 >> -- Best regards, Fu Wei Software Engineer Red Hat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753270AbcKUHc1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Nov 2016 02:32:27 -0500 Received: from mail-it0-f53.google.com ([209.85.214.53]:38669 "EHLO mail-it0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752180AbcKUHcW (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Nov 2016 02:32:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161118185252.GI1197@leverpostej> References: <1479304148-2965-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <1479304148-2965-6-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <20161118185252.GI1197@leverpostej> From: Fu Wei Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:32:21 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 05/15] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: fix a bug in arch_timer_register about arch_timer_uses_ppi To: Mark Rutland Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Daniel Lezcano , Thomas Gleixner , Marc Zyngier , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Sudeep Holla , Hanjun Guo , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Linaro ACPI Mailman List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List , rruigrok@codeaurora.org, "Abdulhamid, Harb" , Christopher Covington , Timur Tabi , G Gregory , Al Stone , Jon Masters , Wei Huang , Arnd Bergmann , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Suravee Suthikulpanit , Leo Duran , Wim Van Sebroeck , Guenter Roeck , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, Tomasz Nowicki , Christoffer Dall , Julien Grall Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Mark, On 19 November 2016 at 02:52, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:48:58PM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote: >> From: Fu Wei >> >> 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. yes, this patch is a preparation for the next which may set arch_timer_use_ppi as ARCH_TIMER_PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI. So you are right, I will merge this into the next and mention this change in the commit message. Great thanks > > Thanks, > Mark. > >> Signed-off-by: Fu Wei >> --- >> 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 >> -- Best regards, Fu Wei Software Engineer Red Hat From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: fu.wei@linaro.org (Fu Wei) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:32:21 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v16 05/15] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: fix a bug in arch_timer_register about arch_timer_uses_ppi In-Reply-To: <20161118185252.GI1197@leverpostej> References: <1479304148-2965-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <1479304148-2965-6-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <20161118185252.GI1197@leverpostej> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Mark, On 19 November 2016 at 02:52, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:48:58PM +0800, fu.wei at linaro.org wrote: >> From: Fu Wei >> >> 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. yes, this patch is a preparation for the next which may set arch_timer_use_ppi as ARCH_TIMER_PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI. So you are right, I will merge this into the next and mention this change in the commit message. Great thanks > > Thanks, > Mark. > >> Signed-off-by: Fu Wei >> --- >> 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 >> -- Best regards, Fu Wei Software Engineer Red Hat