> 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 0x7f
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
> al
> 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 c
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. But
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 a
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 avoidin