On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Michael Neuling <mi...@neuling.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 14:57 +1000, Oliver O'Halloran wrote: >> static int decrementer_set_next_event(unsigned long evt, >> struct clock_event_device *dev); >> @@ -503,7 +504,7 @@ static void __timer_interrupt(void) >> __this_cpu_inc(irq_stat.timer_irqs_event); >> } else { >> now = *next_tb - now; >> - if (now <= DECREMENTER_MAX) >> + if (now <= decrementer_max) >> set_dec((int)now); > > You can remove the int cast here now since set_dec() takes a u64.
I thought I had fixed this, but it looks like I squashed the change to into the second patch by accident, whoops. >> +/* enables the large decrementer for the current CPU */ >> +static void enable_large_decrementer(void) >> +{ >> + /* do we have a large decrementer? */ >> + if (!cpu_has_large_dec()) >> + return; >> + >> + /* do we need a large decrementer? */ >> + if (decrementer_max <= DECREMENTER_DEFAULT_MAX) >> + return; >> + >> + mtspr(SPRN_LPCR, mfspr(SPRN_LPCR) | LPCR_LD); >> + >> + if (!large_dec_enabled()) { >> + decrementer_max = DECREMENTER_DEFAULT_MAX; >> + >> + pr_warn("time_init: Failed to enable large decrementer on CPU >> %d\n", >> + smp_processor_id()); > > Can you make this pr_warn_once() since every CPU is going to call this? Sure. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev