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

From: Caesar Wang
Date: Tue Nov 03 2015 - 04:59:28 EST

å 2015å11æ03æ 16:32, Daniel Lezcano åé:
On 11/03/2015 03:00 AM, Caesar Wang wrote:

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.

/tmp/ccdAnNy5.s:47: Error: missing immediate expression at operand
1 --

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"
is the default which you are allow to omit, so on arm32 dsb()and
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
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
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


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at