On 02/05/2016 04:29 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 01/02/16 19:58, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 02/01, Robin Murphy wrote:
So far, we have been blindly assuming that having access to a
memory-mapped timer frame implies that the individual elements of that
frame frame are already enabled. Whilst it's the firmware's job to give
us non-secure access to frames in the first place, we should not rely
on implementations always being generous enough to also configure CNTACR
for those non-secure frames (e.g. [1]).
Explicitly enable feature-level access per-frame, and verify that the
access we want is really implemented before trying to make use of it.
[1]:https://github.com/ARM-software/tf-issues/issues/170
Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <[email protected]>
---
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
Great, thanks!
Daniel, am I right in hoping this is something you'll pick up, or should
I be resending it to arm-soc?
I will be reviewing timers patches next week. I will take care of this one.
Thanks
-- Daniel
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
