On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:50:16PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote: > > If `where we're at' is trying to boot an ARMv7 product, then you can boot in > > secure svc and lose virtualisation support. Looking forward to ARMv8, this > > isn't going to work, so I'd encourage you to start thinking about getting > > a working bootloader as a requirement. > > Yup, definitely on the same page now. With everyone working on this > I'd imagine that there will be some nice standards worked out by the > time real ARMv8 is ready to ship? > > ...so would you say that you're in support of landing the patch to > allow physical counters? I know Olof has Acked the patch above, but > it's nice if there's general agreement that it's OK.
I'm in favour of fixing the regression, yes. What I didn't understand from the patch is where arch_timer_use_virtual is set to false for your machine, as we need to be careful not to regress arm64 (the vdso uses the virtual counter there). Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
