On Sep 1, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Tudor Laurentiu wrote: > On 9/1/2011 4:56 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:31 AM, Tudor Laurentiu wrote: >> >>> On 9/1/2011 9:27 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 25, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Laurentiu Tudor wrote: >>>> >>>>> Clearing the other TCR bits might break code that sets them (e.g. to setup >>>>> the watchdog or fixed interval timer) before start_cpu_decrementer() gets >>>>> called. >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> 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. >> >> 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. > > how about: > > static void setup_cpu_timers() > > ?
Sounds fine to me > >> Probably add a comment about how care needs to be taken if the wathchdog is >> enable be firmware or a previous kernel. > > OK. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
