Will,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:50:16PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > If `where we're at' is trying to boot an ARMv7 product, then you can boot
>> > in
>> > secure svc and lose
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:50:16PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Will Deacon 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
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
Will,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
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
Will,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 07:09:59PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > Setting aside the security model, booting in secure mode can also have a
>> > significant impact on the
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 07:09:59PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Setting aside the security model, booting in secure mode can also have a
> > significant impact on the programming model of system IP, not just the CPU.
> > For example, the
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> Hi Sonny,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:03:39PM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
>>> This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
>>> the arch_timer_use_virtual
Will,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Setting aside the security model, booting in secure mode can also have a
> significant impact on the programming model of system IP, not just the CPU.
> For example, the SMMU register file suddenly looks different and the way in
>
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> Hi Sonny,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:03:39PM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
>>> This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
>>> the arch_timer_use_virtual boolean
Mark,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Sonny,
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:03:39PM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
>> This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
>> the arch_timer_use_virtual boolean is false. It restores the
>> arch_counter_get_cntpct() function
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 06:17:23PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Catalin Marinas
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:11:47PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> > Not if you boot Linux at hyp, as we've
Hi Sonny,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:03:39PM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
> This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
> the arch_timer_use_virtual boolean is false. It restores the
> arch_counter_get_cntpct() function after removal in
>
> 0d651e4e "clocksource: arch_timer: use virtual
Mark,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> That's not true in general as other secure initialization will still be
> necessary, and the extent and character of that initialization is going
> to be implementation specific.
Can you give more examples of what you mean by
Catalin,
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:11:47PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > Not if you boot Linux at hyp, as we've recommended for this precise
>> > reason. That doesn't fix other
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:58:15PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> On 09/05/2014 06:11 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> > Mark,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> >> Not if you boot Linux at hyp, as we've
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:11:47PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Not if you boot Linux at hyp, as we've recommended for this precise
> > reason. That doesn't fix other things like CNTFRQ if the secure
> > initialisation doesn't poke that,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:58:15PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 06:11 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> Not if you boot Linux at hyp, as we've recommended for this precise
> >> reason. That doesn't fix
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:58:15PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 06:11 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> Not if you boot Linux at hyp, as we've recommended for this precise
> >> reason. That doesn't fix other things like
On 09/05/2014 06:11 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> Not if you boot Linux at hyp, as we've recommended for this precise
>> reason. That doesn't fix other things like CNTFRQ if the secure
>> initialisation doesn't poke that, however.
>
On 09/05/2014 06:11 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
Mark,
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Not if you boot Linux at hyp, as we've recommended for this precise
reason. That doesn't fix other things like CNTFRQ if the secure
initialisation doesn't poke that,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:58:15PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
On 09/05/2014 06:11 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Not if you boot Linux at hyp, as we've recommended for this precise
reason. That doesn't fix other
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:58:15PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
On 09/05/2014 06:11 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
Mark,
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Not if you boot Linux at hyp, as we've recommended for this precise
reason. That doesn't
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:11:47PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Not if you boot Linux at hyp, as we've recommended for this precise
reason. That doesn't fix other things like CNTFRQ if the secure
initialisation doesn't
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:58:15PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
On 09/05/2014 06:11 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
Mark,
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Not if you boot
Catalin,
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:11:47PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Not if you boot Linux at hyp, as we've recommended for this precise
Mark,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
That's not true in general as other secure initialization will still be
necessary, and the extent and character of that initialization is going
to be implementation specific.
Can you give more examples of what you
Hi Sonny,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:03:39PM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
the arch_timer_use_virtual boolean is false. It restores the
arch_counter_get_cntpct() function after removal in
0d651e4e clocksource: arch_timer: use virtual counters
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 06:17:23PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:11:47PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Not if
Mark,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Sonny,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:03:39PM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
the arch_timer_use_virtual boolean is false. It restores the
arch_counter_get_cntpct()
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org wrote:
Mark,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Sonny,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:03:39PM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
the
Will,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
Setting aside the security model, booting in secure mode can also have a
significant impact on the programming model of system IP, not just the CPU.
For example, the SMMU register file suddenly looks different and
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org wrote:
Mark,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Sonny,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:03:39PM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
the
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 07:09:59PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
Setting aside the security model, booting in secure mode can also have a
significant impact on the programming model of system IP, not just the CPU.
For
Will,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 07:09:59PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
Setting aside the security model, booting in secure mode can also have a
Mark,
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Not if you boot Linux at hyp, as we've recommended for this precise
> reason. That doesn't fix other things like CNTFRQ if the secure
> initialisation doesn't poke that, however.
I'll freely admit that I'm out of my league and out of
Mark,
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Not if you boot Linux at hyp, as we've recommended for this precise
reason. That doesn't fix other things like CNTFRQ if the secure
initialisation doesn't poke that, however.
I'll freely admit that I'm out of my
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 06:01:27PM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 01:10:49AM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:33:31AM +0100, Doug
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 06:01:27PM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
[...]
> > If an OS is booted at PL2 it can access the physical counters, and
> > should do so in case something like KVM will be used later. The OS can
> > write to CNTVOFF at PL2, and if it sets CNTVOFF to zero the physical and
> >
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 01:10:49AM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:33:31AM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:58 PM,
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 01:10:49AM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:33:31AM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 06:01:27PM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
[...]
If an OS is booted at PL2 it can access the physical counters, and
should do so in case something like KVM will be used later. The OS can
write to CNTVOFF at PL2, and if it sets CNTVOFF to zero the physical and
virtual
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 06:01:27PM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 01:10:49AM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 01:10:49AM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:33:31AM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:56 PM,
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 01:10:49AM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:33:31AM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Olof Johansson o...@lixom.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27,
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:33:31AM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> >> On 08/27/14 15:33, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 06:09:32PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
> Hi Mark,
Hi Christopher,
> On 08/28/2014 05:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:33:31AM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >>> On
Hi Mark,
On 08/28/2014 05:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:33:31AM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 08/27/14 15:33, Olof Johansson wrote:
>
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:33:31AM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> On 08/27/14 15:33, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Stephen Boyd
> >>>
[cc-ing Will for the VDSO bits]
Hi Sonny,
On 27/08/14 22:03, Sonny Rao wrote:
> This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
> the arch_timer_use_virtual boolean is false. It restores the
> arch_counter_get_cntpct() function after removal in
>
> 0d651e4e "clocksource: arch_timer: use
[cc-ing Will for the VDSO bits]
Hi Sonny,
On 27/08/14 22:03, Sonny Rao wrote:
This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
the arch_timer_use_virtual boolean is false. It restores the
arch_counter_get_cntpct() function after removal in
0d651e4e clocksource: arch_timer: use
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:33:31AM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Olof Johansson o...@lixom.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 08/27/14 15:33, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:26 PM,
Hi Mark,
On 08/28/2014 05:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:33:31AM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Olof Johansson o...@lixom.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 08/27/14 15:33, Olof
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 06:09:32PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
Hi Mark,
Hi Christopher,
On 08/28/2014 05:35 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:33:31AM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Olof Johansson o...@lixom.net wrote:
On Wed,
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:33:31AM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Olof Johansson o...@lixom.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 08/27/14 15:33, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>
Is there any reason why the virtual counter can't be read? Maybe we're
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 08/27/14 15:33, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any reason why the virtual counter can't be read? Maybe we're
>>> the hyp and we need to make sure we don't use the virtual
On 08/27/14 15:33, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
>> Is there any reason why the virtual counter can't be read? Maybe we're
>> the hyp and we need to make sure we don't use the virtual timer so that
>> the guest can use it, but that doesn't have any
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> +Mark (author of change in question)
>
> On 08/27/14 14:27, Sonny Rao wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
This is a bug fix for using physical arch
+Mark (author of change in question)
On 08/27/14 14:27, Sonny Rao wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
>>> This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
>>> the arch_timer_use_virtual boolean is false. It
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
>> This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
>> the arch_timer_use_virtual boolean is false. It restores the
>> arch_counter_get_cntpct() function after removal in
>>
>>
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
> This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
> the arch_timer_use_virtual boolean is false. It restores the
> arch_counter_get_cntpct() function after removal in
>
> 0d651e4e "clocksource: arch_timer: use virtual counters"
>
> and
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Sonny Rao sonny...@chromium.org wrote:
This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
the arch_timer_use_virtual boolean is false. It restores the
arch_counter_get_cntpct() function after removal in
0d651e4e clocksource: arch_timer: use virtual
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Olof Johansson o...@lixom.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Sonny Rao sonny...@chromium.org wrote:
This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
the arch_timer_use_virtual boolean is false. It restores the
arch_counter_get_cntpct() function
+Mark (author of change in question)
On 08/27/14 14:27, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Olof Johansson o...@lixom.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Sonny Rao sonny...@chromium.org wrote:
This is a bug fix for using physical arch timers when
the
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
+Mark (author of change in question)
On 08/27/14 14:27, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Olof Johansson o...@lixom.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Sonny Rao sonny...@chromium.org wrote:
On 08/27/14 15:33, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
Is there any reason why the virtual counter can't be read? Maybe we're
the hyp and we need to make sure we don't use the virtual timer so that
the guest can use it, but that
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 08/27/14 15:33, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
Is there any reason why the virtual counter can't be read? Maybe we're
the hyp and we need to make sure
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Olof Johansson o...@lixom.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 08/27/14 15:33, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
Is there any reason why the
68 matches
Mail list logo
