Re: [PATCH v11 5/8] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Simplify ACPI support code.
From: Fu Wei
Date: Tue Sep 13 2016 - 06:21:34 EST
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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Thomas
>>
>> On 6 September 2016 at 22:36, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx 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" ?
>>
>> âtimer_count < 0â 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