On 17/12/13 20:39, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 17.12.2013, at 19:31, Robin Murphy robin.mur...@arm.com wrote:
Some platforms have secure firmware which does not correctly set the
CNTFRQ register on boot, preventing the use of the Generic Timer.
This patch allows mirroring the necessary host
On 18.12.2013, at 14:44, Robin Murphy robin.mur...@arm.com wrote:
On 17/12/13 20:39, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 17.12.2013, at 19:31, Robin Murphy robin.mur...@arm.com wrote:
Some platforms have secure firmware which does not correctly set the
CNTFRQ register on boot, preventing the use of
On 18/12/13 14:07, Alexander Graf wrote:
[...]
How does it encourage a vendor to properly implement their firmware if there's
a workaround?
Alex
Hi Alex,
In short, by enabling the users to create the demand. Yes, like any workaround there's potential
for abuse, but having *something*
Some platforms have secure firmware which does not correctly set the
CNTFRQ register on boot, preventing the use of the Generic Timer.
This patch allows mirroring the necessary host workaround by specifying
the clock-frequency property in the guest DT.
This should only be considered a means of
On 17.12.2013, at 19:31, Robin Murphy robin.mur...@arm.com wrote:
Some platforms have secure firmware which does not correctly set the
CNTFRQ register on boot, preventing the use of the Generic Timer.
This patch allows mirroring the necessary host workaround by specifying
the clock-frequency
