Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1482293 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v11 5/8] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Simplify ACPI support code.

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v11 5/8] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Simplify ACPI  support code. Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> - 2016-09-13 11:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v11 5/8] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Simplify ACPI  support code. Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> - 2016-09-13 12:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v11 5/8] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Simplify ACPI  support code. Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> - 2016-09-13 13:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v11 5/8] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Simplify ACPI  support code. Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> - 2016-09-13 14:00 +0200

#1482293 — Re: [PATCH v11 5/8] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Simplify ACPI support code.

Hi Thomas, Daniel,

For these  arm_arch_timer patches, do you have any other suggestion or comment?
I have deleted "skipping" in the error message.

I have prepared v12 (rebase to rc6 and on the top of IORT v11),
should I send it now (if you are OK with my arm_arch_timer patches ),
or anything I can do to improve this patchset ?

Thanks.

On 7 September 2016 at 17:23, Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Thomas
>
> On 6 September 2016 at 22:36, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
>>> +     if (timer_count < 0)
>>> +             pr_err("Failed to get platform timer info, skipping.\n");
>>
>> So this prints something about skipping. But then it continues as if
>> nothing went wrong. That's either wrong or confusing or both.
>
> yes, you are right, this info is confusing.
> maybe we just delete the "skipping" ?
>
> “timer_count < 0” is caused by some firmware bug, in gtdt.c:
> ----
> int __init acpi_gtdt_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
> {
> ......
>         if (start < (void *)table + sizeof(struct acpi_table_gtdt)) {
>         pr_err(FW_BUG "Failed to retrieve timer info from firmware:
> invalid data.\n");
>         return -EINVAL;
> ......
> }
> ----
>
> But in this situation( without platform timers ), system still can work.
> So I thing we just need to print a error.
>
>>
>>> -     arch_timer_init();
>>> -     return 0;
>>> +     return arch_timer_init();
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>         tglx
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Fu Wei
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat



-- 
Best regards,

Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1482352

Hi Mark, Marc,

Sorry for missing you in the cc list
Do you have any suggestion for the  arm_arch_timer patches?
Could you help me to review these patches ?

Great thanks !

On 13 September 2016 at 17:22, Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Thomas, Daniel,
>
> For these  arm_arch_timer patches, do you have any other suggestion or comment?
> I have deleted "skipping" in the error message.
>
> I have prepared v12 (rebase to rc6 and on the top of IORT v11),
> should I send it now (if you are OK with my arm_arch_timer patches ),
> or anything I can do to improve this patchset ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On 7 September 2016 at 17:23, Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Hi Thomas
>>
>> On 6 September 2016 at 22:36, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
>>>> +     if (timer_count < 0)
>>>> +             pr_err("Failed to get platform timer info, skipping.\n");
>>>
>>> So this prints something about skipping. But then it continues as if
>>> nothing went wrong. That's either wrong or confusing or both.
>>
>> yes, you are right, this info is confusing.
>> maybe we just delete the "skipping" ?
>>
>> “timer_count < 0” is caused by some firmware bug, in gtdt.c:
>> ----
>> int __init acpi_gtdt_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
>> {
>> ......
>>         if (start < (void *)table + sizeof(struct acpi_table_gtdt)) {
>>         pr_err(FW_BUG "Failed to retrieve timer info from firmware:
>> invalid data.\n");
>>         return -EINVAL;
>> ......
>> }
>> ----
>>
>> But in this situation( without platform timers ), system still can work.
>> So I thing we just need to print a error.
>>
>>>
>>>> -     arch_timer_init();
>>>> -     return 0;
>>>> +     return arch_timer_init();
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>         tglx
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Fu Wei
>> Software Engineer
>> Red Hat
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Fu Wei
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat



-- 
Best regards,

Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1482385

Fu Wei wrote:
> I have prepared v12 (rebase to rc6 and on the top of IORT v11),
> should I send it now

Yes.

Please don't wait to release new versions of your patches.  Time is 
running out to get these into 4.9.

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1482394

Hi Timur


On 09/13/2016 07:38 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Fu Wei wrote:
>> I have prepared v12 (rebase to rc6 and on the top of IORT v11),
>> should I send it now
>
> Yes.
>
> Please don't wait to release new versions of your patches.  Time is running out to get these into 4.9.
>
yes, v12 is posted
working on v13(improving memory-mapped timer code following Marc's suggestion)

-- 
Best regards,

Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web