> Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 00:06:21 +0200
> From: Christian Weisgerber
>
> Mark Kettenis:
>
> > Nevertheless, here is a different take on the problem. Since the
> > timecounter only uses the low 32 bits we don't need the double read.
> > This version also changes the timecounter mask from
Mark Kettenis:
> Nevertheless, here is a different take on the problem. Since the
> timecounter only uses the low 32 bits we don't need the double read.
> This version also changes the timecounter mask from 0x7fff to
> 0x. That must be ok, since the counter has 64 bits and we are
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:29:05 -0500
> From: Scott Cheloha
> Cc: tech@openbsd.org
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 10:35:46AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >
> > Here is the arm64 version. Again I've taken the approach of
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 10:35:46AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
> Here is the arm64 version. Again I've taken the approach of copying
> the kernel timecounter code verbatim. Technically we don't need the
> Cortex-A73 errata workaround here since the timecounter only uses the
> low 32 bits.
On 09.07.2020 11:35, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Here is the arm64 version. Again I've taken the approach of copying
the kernel timecounter code verbatim. Technically we don't need the
Cortex-A73 errata workaround here since the timecounter only uses the
low 32 bits. But that is true for the kernel
Here is the arm64 version. Again I've taken the approach of copying
the kernel timecounter code verbatim. Technically we don't need the
Cortex-A73 errata workaround here since the timecounter only uses the
low 32 bits. But that is true for the kernel as well! If people
think it is worth
