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

[Daniel Lezcano]

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 ;)

Thanks !

   -- Daniel


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog