[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 7/7] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: validate arch_timer_rate
On 12/02/2020 10:55, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> Because, as the commit message outlines it, such a frequency is terribly
>> out of spec?
> I don't see in the RM that < 1MHz is terribly out of spec.
> 'Frequency
> Increments at a fixed frequency, typically in the range 1-50MHz.
> Can support one or more alternative operating modes in which it increments by larger amounts at a
> lower frequency, typically for power-saving.'
> There is even an example how to operate at 20kHz and increment by 500.
> I don't know the code if it's supported, thought.

For that one case the value reported by CNTFRQ shouldn't change - it's still
a timer that looks like is operating at 10MHz, but under the hood is doing
bigger increments at lower freq.

As I was trying to get to, this patch isn't validating the actual frequency
the timer operates on, rather that whatever is reported by CNTFRQ is
somewhat sane (which here means [1, 50]MHz, although we just check the
lower bound).


>> And? It seems to address a potential issue where the time frequency
>> is out of spec, and makes sure we don't end up with additional problems
>> in the AMU code.
> This patch just prints warning, does not change anything in booting or
> in any code related to AMU.

Right, but it should still be worth having - at least it shows up in
dmesg, and when someone reports something fishy we get a hint that we can
blame the hardware.

>> On its own, it is perfectly sensible and could be merged as part of this
>> series with my
>> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <>
>>          M.
> Regards,
> Lukasz

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-12 12:13    [W:0.087 / U:3.640 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site