On Sep 1, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Tudor Laurentiu wrote:

On 9/1/2011 4:56 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:

quoted

=20
On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:31 AM, Tudor Laurentiu wrote:
=20

quoted

On 9/1/2011 9:27 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:

quoted

=20
On Aug 25, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:
=20

quoted

Clearing the other TCR bits might break code that sets them (e.g. =

to setup

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

the watchdog or fixed interval timer) before =

start_cpu_decrementer() gets

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

called.

=20
Can you be more specific about the case you're concerned about.  =

I'm not sure we want to leave the FIT enabled if it was previously.  =
Watchdog I could possibly see leaving alone.

quoted

quoted

=20
My particular case was this: I was experimenting with having the =

watchdog enabled during the boot process, in case something goes wrong =
before the normal watchdog mechanism kicks in. That didn't work without =
making this modification.

quoted

quoted

Then, thinking that having a function start_cpu_decrementer() =

touching the other timers and not only the decrementer as its name =
implies might not be good. So I submitted this patch to the public =
mailing list to let the community decide if it's useful.

quoted

=20
So I think renaming the function is fine, and I think not touching =

the watchdog bits is also reasonable.  So if you update the patch along =
those lines I think we can push in.  I do want to make sure that the FIT =
is disabled as we dont expect it.

=20
how about:
=20
static void setup_cpu_timers()
=20
?

Sounds fine to me

=20

quoted

Probably add a comment about how care needs to be taken if the =

wathchdog is enable be firmware or a previous kernel.

=20
OK.
=20
=20
=20
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev