Daniel, ? 2015?11?03? 01:28, Daniel Lezcano ??: > 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, >>>> >>>> ? 2015?10?01? 03:14, Heiko St?bner ??: >>>>> 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. -- Thanks, Caesar
