path: root/arch/arm/lib
diff options
authorRussell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>2015-04-13 10:36:04 +0100
committerRussell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>2015-04-14 22:28:07 +0100
commit57ca654bef6c43bbbccfb2d231fd245d3f67dd46 (patch)
tree5c76973e14228695f742c71a33d87b7b9f916149 /arch/arm/lib
parent37463be8658ae5fba153f4029ca3ec3f8a64fd51 (diff)
ARM: ensure delay timer has sufficient accuracy for delays
We have recently had an example of someone wanting to use a 90kHz timer for the software delay loop. udelay() needs to have at least microsecond resolution to allow drivers access to a delay mechanism with a reasonable chance of delaying the period they requested within at least a 50% marging of error, especially for small delays. Discussion about the udelay() accuracy can be found at: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/9/37 Reject timers which are unable to supply this level of resolution. Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Diffstat (limited to 'arch/arm/lib')
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/delay.c b/arch/arm/lib/delay.c
index 312d43eb686a..8044591dca72 100644
--- a/arch/arm/lib/delay.c
+++ b/arch/arm/lib/delay.c
@@ -83,6 +83,12 @@ void __init register_current_timer_delay(const struct delay_timer *timer)
NSEC_PER_SEC, 3600);
res = cyc_to_ns(1ULL, new_mult, new_shift);
+ if (res > 1000) {
+ pr_err("Ignoring delay timer %ps, which has insufficient resolution of %lluns\n",
+ timer, res);
+ return;
+ }
if (!delay_calibrated && (!delay_res || (res < delay_res))) {
pr_info("Switching to timer-based delay loop, resolution %lluns\n", res);
delay_timer = timer;