Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] clocksource/drivers/timer-ti-dm: Prepare to handle
 dra7 timer wrap issue
To:     Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Tero Kristo <kristo@kernel.org>
References: <20210304073737.15810-1-tony@atomide.com>
 <20210304073737.15810-2-tony@atomide.com>
 <556d55af-0b30-8751-6aef-2e1bb9db1a76@linaro.org>
 <YFjG5IsHExuaixN9@atomide.com>
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <5c3c2447-3f8c-160c-8761-e43c1b4ebbf9@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 22 Mar 2021 19:23:36 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YFjG5IsHExuaixN9@atomide.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 22/03/2021 17:33, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> * Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> [210322 15:56]:
>> On 04/03/2021 08:37, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> There is a timer wrap issue on dra7 for the ARM architected timer.
>>> In a typical clock configuration the timer fails to wrap after 388 days.
>>>
>>> To work around the issue, we need to use timer-ti-dm timers instead.
>>>
>>> Let's prepare for adding support for percpu timers by adding a common
>>> dmtimer_clkevt_init_common() and call it from dmtimer_clockevent_init().
>>> This patch makes no intentional functional changes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> @@ -575,33 +574,60 @@ static int __init dmtimer_clockevent_init(struct device_node *np)
>>>  	 */
>>>  	writel_relaxed(OMAP_TIMER_CTRL_POSTED, t->base + t->ifctrl);
>>>  
>>> +	if (dev->cpumask == cpu_possible_mask)
>>> +		irqflags = IRQF_TIMER;
>>> +	else
>>> +		irqflags = IRQF_TIMER | IRQF_NOBALANCING;
>>
>> Can you explain the reasoning behind the test above ?
> 
> In the per cpu case we assign one dmtimer per cpu, and we want the
> interrupt handling on the assigned CPU. In the per cpu case we have
> the cpu specified with dev->cpumask unlike for the normal clockevent
> case.
> 
> In the per cpu dmtimer case the interrupt line is not wired per cpu
> though, so I don't think we want to add IRQF_PERCPU here.

If it is per cpu, then the parameter will be cpumask_of(cpu). If there
is one cpu, no balancing can happen and then the IRQF_NOBALANCING is not
needed, neither this test and the irqflags, right?


-- 
<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