? 2015?11?03? 16:32, Daniel Lezcano ??: > 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 ;) > 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
