Patchwork [GIT,PULL] arm: arch_timer cleanups and niceties for 3.11

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Mark Rutland
Date June 7, 2013, 5:39 p.m.
Message ID <20130607173902.GJ23311@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Download mbox
Permalink /patch/249779/
State New
Headers show

Pull-request

git://linux-arm.org/linux-mr.git for-rmk/arch-timer-cleanups

Comments

Mark Rutland - June 7, 2013, 5:39 p.m.
Hi Russell,

Please pull these arch_timer cleanups I've been holding onto for a while.
They're the same as my last posting [1], but have been rebased to v3.10-rc3.

Thanks,
Mark.

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-May/170602.html

---->8----

The following changes since commit e4aa937ec75df0eea0bee03bffa3303ad36c986b:

  Linux 3.10-rc3 (2013-05-26 16:00:47 -0700)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://linux-arm.org/linux-mr.git for-rmk/arch-timer-cleanups

for you to fetch changes up to 3f71be237ce37e0131973ebfa33b326bc51d743e:

  ARM: arch_timer: stop virtual timer when booted in HYP mode (2013-06-07 10:20:29 +0100)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Zyngier (2):
      ARM: hyp: initialize CNTVOFF to zero
      ARM: arch_timer: stop virtual timer when booted in HYP mode

Mark Rutland (3):
      ARM: KVM: arch_timers: zero CNTVOFF upon return to host
      clocksource: arch_timer: use virtual counters
      arm: fix up ARM_ARCH_TIMER selects

 arch/arm/include/asm/arch_timer.h    |  9 ---------
 arch/arm/kernel/hyp-stub.S           |  7 +++++++
 arch/arm/kvm/interrupts_head.S       |  4 ++++
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig         |  2 +-
 arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig       |  4 ++--
 arch/arm/mach-tegra/Kconfig          |  2 +-
 arch/arm/mach-virt/Kconfig           |  2 +-
 arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h  | 10 ----------
 drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 23 +++++------------------
 include/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.h |  2 +-
 10 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
Russell King - ARM Linux - June 17, 2013, 1:20 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:04:57AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 06:39:02PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi Russell,
> > 
> > Please pull these arch_timer cleanups I've been holding onto for a while.
> > They're the same as my last posting [1], but have been rebased to v3.10-rc3.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Mark.
> > 
> > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-May/170602.html
> 
> It looks like there was a final ARM_ARCH_TIMER select in multi_v7_defconfig
> that's causing architected timer support to not get selected, which the patch
> below should fix if appended to the series. I've grepped for ARM_ARCH_TIMER,
> and it looks like it's the the last remaining occurence.

So what do you want to do with this?  Is it needed to be included in your
set of patches in your pull request?

And I think I remember seeing some other patches related to this change
too...
Mark Rutland - June 17, 2013, 1:29 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 02:20:05PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:04:57AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 06:39:02PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > Hi Russell,
> > > 
> > > Please pull these arch_timer cleanups I've been holding onto for a while.
> > > They're the same as my last posting [1], but have been rebased to v3.10-rc3.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mark.
> > > 
> > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-May/170602.html
> > 
> > It looks like there was a final ARM_ARCH_TIMER select in multi_v7_defconfig
> > that's causing architected timer support to not get selected, which the patch
> > below should fix if appended to the series. I've grepped for ARM_ARCH_TIMER,
> > and it looks like it's the the last remaining occurence.
> 
> So what do you want to do with this?  Is it needed to be included in your
> set of patches in your pull request?

Sorry, I was a bit trigger happy with this patch. It doesn't need to go through
with the patches in the pull request, and I think the patches I posted earlier
today [1] are a better solution.

> 
> And I think I remember seeing some other patches related to this change
> too...

Indeed. They should be able to go through separately as there's no strict
dependence.

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-June/177001.html

Thanks,
Mark.