On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:48:58PM +0800, [email protected] wrote: > From: Fu Wei <[email protected]> > > 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. Thanks, Mark. > Signed-off-by: Fu Wei <[email protected]> > --- > 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 >
