On Sun, Aug 8, 2021 at 3:40 AM Marc Zyngier [off-list ref] wrote:
On Sun, 08 Aug 2021 02:14:35 +0100,
Oliver Upton [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
The only other sane idea that I could come up with is providing this
information to the kernel through DT, although that would leave ACPI
systems behind.
It also has the disadvantage that a large number of DT timer nodes are
a mess of cargo-culted, copy-pasted idioms, and that adding another
property would only make it worse.
Agreed, this does seem like the best solution, short of the
architecture actually providing something to determine the counter
width.
On that note, I wonder how (if ever) we will be able to move away from
unnecessarily masking a 64 bit counter, i.e. a v8.6 or above
implementation. With this patch, one such counter would wrap after
36.56 years, short of the 40 year guarantee we have from the
architecture for < v8.6 implementations. Getting it to 64 bits would
squarely make it someone else's problem ~585 years from now :)
--
Thanks,
Oliver
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel