Re: [PATCH v19 05/15] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: rework PPI determination

2017-01-17 Thread Fu Wei
Hi Mark, On 17 January 2017 at 01:29, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:45:53PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote: > [...] > >> - if (is_hyp_mode_available() || !arch_timer_ppi[ARCH_TIMER_VIRT_PPI]) { >> - bool has_ppi; >> + if (is_hyp_mode_available() && is_kernel

Re: [PATCH v19 05/15] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: rework PPI determination

2017-01-16 Thread Mark Rutland
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:45:53PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote: [...] > - if (is_hyp_mode_available() || !arch_timer_ppi[ARCH_TIMER_VIRT_PPI]) { > - bool has_ppi; > + if (is_hyp_mode_available() && is_kernel_in_hyp_mode()) > + return ARCH_TIMER_HYP_PPI; > > -

[PATCH v19 05/15] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: rework PPI determination

2016-12-20 Thread fu . wei
From: Fu Wei Currently, the arch timer driver uses ARCH_TIMER_PHYS_SECURE_PPI to mean the driver will use the secure PPI *and* potentialy also use the non-secure PPI. This is somewhat confusing. For arm64, where it never makes sense to use the secure PPI, this means we must always request the us