On 11/04/2019 18:17, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 08/04/2019 17:49, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> When a given timer is affected by an erratum and requires an
>> alternative implementation of set_next_event, we do a rather
>> complicated dance to detect and call the workaround on each
>> set_next_event call.
>>
>> This is clearly idiotic, as we can perfectly detect whether
>> this CPU requires a workaround while setting up the clock event
>> device.
>>
>> This only requires the CPU-specific detection to be done a bit
>> earlier, and we can then safely override the set_next_event pointer
>> if we have a workaround associated to that CPU.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com>
>
> Do you want me to take the patch ?
>
> Otherwise:
>
> Acked-by; Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezc...@linaro.org>
I'd like to keep most of the series together (just so that I don't have
to track extra stuff).
Thanks for the Ack though.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
