Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] clocksource: rockchip: Make the driver more compatible

[Caesar Wang]

Daniel,

å 2015å11æ03æ 01:28, Daniel Lezcano åé:
> On 10/31/2015 12:47 AM, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > Am Freitag, 30. Oktober 2015, 11:42:29 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
> > > On 10/30/2015 04:43 AM, Caesar Wang wrote:
> > > > Hi Daniel,
> > > >
> > > > å 2015å10æ01æ 03:14, Heiko StÃbner åé:
> > > > > Hi Daniel,
> > > > >
> > > > > Am Dienstag, 29. September 2015, 06:18:03 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
> > > > > > On 09/25/2015 04:14 AM, Caesar Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > Build the arm64 SoCs (e.g.: RK3368) on Rockchip platform,
> > > > > > > There are some failure with build up on timer driver for rockchip.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Says:
> > > > > > > /tmp/ccdAnNy5.s:47: Error: missing immediate expression at  operand
> > > > > > > 1 --
> > > > > > > `dsb`
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The problem was different semantics of dsb on btw arm32 and arm64,
> > > > > > > Here we can convert the dsb with insteading of dsb(sy).The "sy" 
> > > > > > > param
> > > > > > > is the default which you are allow to omit, so on arm32 dsb()and
> > > > > > > dsb(sy)
> > > > > > > are the same.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <wxt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > as you have "just" Acked these patches, I guess you are expecting 
> > > > > them
> > > > > to go
> > > > > through the same tree as the devicetree changes, right?
> > > >
> > > > I'm wonder if someone will apply this series patchs but the wait.:-)
> > > > In fact, I'm no sure that the Acked is really meaning.:-
> > >
> > > Yes, by acking the patch I say I am ok with it and I agree it can go
> > > through another tree.
> >
> > although I guess the two clocksource changes could very well just go
> > through your tree. dsb() -> dsb(sy) is supposed to be equal and the 
> > second
> > one is just cosmetics.  The Kconfig and dts changes need to wait in 
> > any case
> > for 4.5 ... but I guess that may be true for the clocksource changes 
> > as well?
>
> Heiko, Caesar,
>
> I am wondering if the dsb() is really necessary. Is it possible you 
> test the timer by removing this instruction ? Otherwise I will have to 
> setup my board again and it will take awhile.

As the @Arnd suggestion,

That's seem ok for me.
Although the writel_relaxed() and writel() a bit different  with DSB() 
and L2's sync.

Do I need send the patch v3?  I will test that on my board.

I'm no sure that why the clocksource driver didn't use the 
writel_relaxed() to work.
Okay, I think we should according to the suggestion or required.

--
Thanks,
Caesar

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/