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

[Caesar Wang]

在 2015年11月03日 16:32, Daniel Lezcano 写道:
> On 11/03/2015 03:00 AM, Caesar Wang wrote:
>> Daniel,
>>
>> 在 2015年11月03日 01:28, Daniel Lezcano 写道:
>>> 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,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 在 2015年10月01日 03:14, Heiko Stübner 写道:
>>>>>>> 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 at rock-chips.com>
>>>>>>>> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano at linaro.org>
>>>>>>> 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 at rock-chips.com>

Thanks your send!

> Thanks !
>
>   -- Daniel
>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Caesar