From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Caesar Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] clocksource: rockchip: Make the driver more compatible Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:00:39 +0800 Message-ID: <56381547.5070109@gmail.com> References: <1443147298-12603-1-git-send-email-wxt@rock-chips.com> <5632E765.4010207@gmail.com> <56334995.6090103@linaro.org> <21587719.mnFBFBzBeI@phil> <56379D46.1000402@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56379D46.1000402-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: Heiko Stuebner , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, catalin.marinas-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-rockchip-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Caesar Wang , Arnd Bergmann List-Id: linux-rockchip.vger.kernel.org Daniel, =E5=9C=A8 2015=E5=B9=B411=E6=9C=8803=E6=97=A5 01:28, Daniel Lezcano =E5= =86=99=E9=81=93: > 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, >>>> >>>> =E5=9C=A8 2015=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=8801=E6=97=A5 03:14, Heiko St=C3=BC= bner =E5=86=99=E9=81=93: >>>>> 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 rockch= ip. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Says: >>>>>>> /tmp/ccdAnNy5.s:47: Error: missing immediate expression at ope= rand >>>>>>> 1 -- >>>>>>> `dsb` >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem was different semantics of dsb on btw arm32 and arm= 64, >>>>>>> Here we can convert the dsb with insteading of dsb(sy).The "sy"= =20 >>>>>>> param >>>>>>> is the default which you are allow to omit, so on arm32 dsb()an= d >>>>>>> dsb(sy) >>>>>>> are the same. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang >>>>>> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano >>>>> as you have "just" Acked these patches, I guess you are expecting= =20 >>>>> 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 g= o >>> 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=20 >> second >> one is just cosmetics. The Kconfig and dts changes need to wait in=20 >> any case >> for 4.5 ... but I guess that may be true for the clocksource changes= =20 >> as well? > > Heiko, Caesar, > > I am wondering if the dsb() is really necessary. Is it possible you=20 > test the timer by removing this instruction ? Otherwise I will have t= o=20 > 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()=20 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=20 writel_relaxed() to work. Okay, I think we should according to the suggestion or required. --=20 Thanks, Caesar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" i= n the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: caesar.upstream@gmail.com (Caesar Wang) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:00:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v2 1/4] clocksource: rockchip: Make the driver more compatible In-Reply-To: <56379D46.1000402@linaro.org> References: <1443147298-12603-1-git-send-email-wxt@rock-chips.com> <5632E765.4010207@gmail.com> <56334995.6090103@linaro.org> <21587719.mnFBFBzBeI@phil> <56379D46.1000402@linaro.org> Message-ID: <56381547.5070109@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 >>>>>> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano >>>>> 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754385AbbKCCAw (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:00:52 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.220.53]:36307 "EHLO mail-pa0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751313AbbKCCAt (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:00:49 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] clocksource: rockchip: Make the driver more compatible To: Daniel Lezcano References: <1443147298-12603-1-git-send-email-wxt@rock-chips.com> <5632E765.4010207@gmail.com> <56334995.6090103@linaro.org> <21587719.mnFBFBzBeI@phil> <56379D46.1000402@linaro.org> Cc: Heiko Stuebner , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Caesar Wang , Arnd Bergmann From: Caesar Wang Message-ID: <56381547.5070109@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:00:39 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56379D46.1000402@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 >>>>>> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano >>>>> 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