On 01/02/16 19:58, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 02/01, Robin Murphy wrote:
So far, we have been blindly assuming that having access to a
memory-mapped timer frame implies that the individual elements of that
frame frame are already enabled. Whilst it's the firmware's job to give
us non-secure access to frames in the first place, we should not rely
on implementations always being generous enough to also configure CNTACR
for those non-secure frames (e.g. [1]).
Explicitly enable feature-level access per-frame, and verify that the
access we want is really implemented before trying to make use of it.
[1]:https://github.com/ARM-software/tf-issues/issues/170
Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com>
---
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sb...@codeaurora.org>
Tested-by: Stephen Boyd <sb...@codeaurora.org>
Great, thanks!
Daniel, am I right in hoping this is something you'll pick up, or should
I be resending it to arm-soc?
Thanks,
Robin.
