On 24/01/2019 10:59, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 5:39 PM Daniel Lezcano > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 24/01/2019 09:56, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 5:19 PM Daniel Lezcano >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/01/2019 07:22, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >>>>> If the clock tree is not fully populated when the timer-sun5i init code >>>>> is called, attempts to get the clock rate for the timer would fail and >>>>> return 0. >>>>> >>>>> Make the init code for both clock events and clocksource check the >>>>> returned clock rate and fail gracefully if the result is 0, instead of >>>>> causing a divide by 0 exception later on. >>>>> >>>>> Fixes: 4a59058f0b09 ("clocksource/drivers/sun5i: Refactor the current >>>>> code") >>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <[email protected]> >>>>> --- >>>> >>>> Applied thanks. >>> >>> I'm not seeing this in linux-next, nor the patch >>> >>> arm64: arch_timer: Workaround for Allwinner A64 timer instability >>> >>> Any idea where these ended up? >> >> Yeah, I have a rough idea. They are now in linux-next via the >> clockevents/next branch. > > Thanks, Daniel. > > Stephen, > > Looks like linux-next is not picking up the latest clockevents/next. > > The merge log for linux-next-20190124 shows: > > Merging clockevents/clockevents/next (bd2bcaa565a2 Merge branch > 'clockevents/4.21' of > http://git.linaro.org/people/daniel.lezcano/linux into timers/core) > $ git merge clockevents/clockevents/next > > The merged clockevents/next looks outdated compared to > > > http://git.linaro.org/people/daniel.lezcano/linux.git/log/?h=clockevents/next
I just updated the branch, so there will be a delay before it gets reflected in linux-next. -- <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
