On 11/03/2015 03:00 AM, Caesar Wang wrote: > 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. 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
