| Message ID | 20160608183110.13851-8-matthew@mattleach.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 08/06/16 19:31, Matthew Leach wrote: > From: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> > > The exynos low-level debug macros need to be fixed if the system is being > built big endian. Add the necessary endian swaps for accessing the registers > to get output working again > > Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> > --- > arch/arm/include/debug/samsung.S | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) Should this go via the maintainer or to RMK? If to RMK, then shall I get it submitted (and does anyone else want to ack?)
On 06/10/2016 01:12 PM, Ben Dooks wrote: > On 08/06/16 19:31, Matthew Leach wrote: >> From: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> >> >> The exynos low-level debug macros need to be fixed if the system is being >> built big endian. Add the necessary endian swaps for accessing the registers >> to get output working again >> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> >> --- >> arch/arm/include/debug/samsung.S | 8 ++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > Should this go via the maintainer or to RMK? > > If to RMK, then shall I get it submitted (and does anyone else > want to ack?) If there are no objections, I can take it through samsung-soc with other arch/arm/mach-exynos* patches. What I am missing here, is Matthew's Signed-off-by. Matthew, you touched and sent the patch so could you add the Sob? Best regards, Krzysztof
On 10/06/16 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 06/10/2016 01:12 PM, Ben Dooks wrote: >> On 08/06/16 19:31, Matthew Leach wrote: >>> From: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> >>> >>> The exynos low-level debug macros need to be fixed if the system is being >>> built big endian. Add the necessary endian swaps for accessing the registers >>> to get output working again >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/include/debug/samsung.S | 8 ++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> Should this go via the maintainer or to RMK? >> >> If to RMK, then shall I get it submitted (and does anyone else >> want to ack?) > > If there are no objections, I can take it through samsung-soc with other > arch/arm/mach-exynos* patches. > > What I am missing here, is Matthew's Signed-off-by. > > Matthew, you touched and sent the patch so could you add the Sob? Either that or I could just send it from my tree directly.
On 10/06/16 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 06/10/2016 01:12 PM, Ben Dooks wrote: >> On 08/06/16 19:31, Matthew Leach wrote: >>> From: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> >>> >>> The exynos low-level debug macros need to be fixed if the system is being >>> built big endian. Add the necessary endian swaps for accessing the registers >>> to get output working again >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/include/debug/samsung.S | 8 ++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> Should this go via the maintainer or to RMK? >> >> If to RMK, then shall I get it submitted (and does anyone else >> want to ack?) > > If there are no objections, I can take it through samsung-soc with other > arch/arm/mach-exynos* patches. > > What I am missing here, is Matthew's Signed-off-by. > > Matthew, you touched and sent the patch so could you add the Sob? I've asked Matthew to re-send the core patches with the signed-off sorted out. He can also put them on a public facing git server if that would be helpful.
On 06/10/2016 03:02 PM, Ben Dooks wrote: > On 10/06/16 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 06/10/2016 01:12 PM, Ben Dooks wrote: >>> On 08/06/16 19:31, Matthew Leach wrote: >>>> From: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> >>>> >>>> The exynos low-level debug macros need to be fixed if the system is being >>>> built big endian. Add the necessary endian swaps for accessing the registers >>>> to get output working again >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/include/debug/samsung.S | 8 ++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >>> >>> Should this go via the maintainer or to RMK? >>> >>> If to RMK, then shall I get it submitted (and does anyone else >>> want to ack?) >> >> If there are no objections, I can take it through samsung-soc with other >> arch/arm/mach-exynos* patches. >> >> What I am missing here, is Matthew's Signed-off-by. >> >> Matthew, you touched and sent the patch so could you add the Sob? > > I've asked Matthew to re-send the core patches with the signed-off > sorted out. Thanks. > He can also put them on a public facing git server if > that would be helpful. No need. I think it will go through separate trees anyway. Except the change adding ARCH_SUPPORTS_BIG_ENDIAN, I don't see any dependencies. As for the ARCH_SUPPORTS_BIG_ENDIAN, I think it should be applied when all necessary drivers are fixed. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/debug/samsung.S b/arch/arm/include/debug/samsung.S index 8d8d922..f4eeed2 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/debug/samsung.S +++ b/arch/arm/include/debug/samsung.S @@ -15,11 +15,13 @@ .macro fifo_level_s5pv210 rd, rx ldr \rd, [\rx, # S3C2410_UFSTAT] +ARM_BE8(rev \rd, \rd) and \rd, \rd, #S5PV210_UFSTAT_TXMASK .endm .macro fifo_full_s5pv210 rd, rx ldr \rd, [\rx, # S3C2410_UFSTAT] +ARM_BE8(rev \rd, \rd) tst \rd, #S5PV210_UFSTAT_TXFULL .endm @@ -28,6 +30,7 @@ .macro fifo_level_s3c2440 rd, rx ldr \rd, [\rx, # S3C2410_UFSTAT] +ARM_BE8(rev \rd, \rd) and \rd, \rd, #S3C2440_UFSTAT_TXMASK .endm @@ -37,6 +40,7 @@ .macro fifo_full_s3c2440 rd, rx ldr \rd, [\rx, # S3C2410_UFSTAT] +ARM_BE8(rev \rd, \rd) tst \rd, #S3C2440_UFSTAT_TXFULL .endm @@ -50,6 +54,7 @@ .macro busyuart, rd, rx ldr \rd, [\rx, # S3C2410_UFCON] +ARM_BE8(rev \rd, \rd) tst \rd, #S3C2410_UFCON_FIFOMODE @ fifo enabled? beq 1001f @ @ FIFO enabled... @@ -61,6 +66,7 @@ 1001: @ busy waiting for non fifo ldr \rd, [\rx, # S3C2410_UTRSTAT] +ARM_BE8(rev \rd, \rd) tst \rd, #S3C2410_UTRSTAT_TXFE beq 1001b @@ -69,6 +75,7 @@ .macro waituart,rd,rx ldr \rd, [\rx, # S3C2410_UFCON] +ARM_BE8(rev \rd, \rd) tst \rd, #S3C2410_UFCON_FIFOMODE @ fifo enabled? beq 1001f @ @ FIFO enabled... @@ -80,6 +87,7 @@ 1001: @ idle waiting for non fifo ldr \rd, [\rx, # S3C2410_UTRSTAT] +ARM_BE8(rev \rd, \rd) tst \rd, #S3C2410_UTRSTAT_TXFE beq 1001b