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 <[email protected]>
>>>>> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>
>>>> 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.
--
<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
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 <[email protected]>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>
>>>>> 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
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 <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>
>>>>>> 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
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 <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]>
Thanks your send!
> Thanks !
>
> -- Daniel
>
>
--
Thanks,
Caesar