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

[Caesar Wang]

å 2015å11æ03æ 16:32, Daniel Lezcano åé:
> On 11/03/2015 03:00 AM, Caesar Wang wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I think the patch is trivial enough I can do the change myself if you 
> test the change on your side. But it would be a good practice to send 
> the patch you have tested. Up to you ;)

Yup, that's also happy work.

Feel free add my test tag if you remove the dsb().
Tested-by: Caesar Wang <wxt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks your send!

> Thanks !
>
>   -- Daniel


--
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/