[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: Rework and correct barrier definitions

[Ziyuan Xu <xzy.xu@rock-chips.com>]

Hi Tom,


On 2016?08?02? 08:39, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 08:37:19AM +0800, Ziyuan Xu wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>>
>> On 2016?08?02? 06:54, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> As part of testing booting Linux kernels on Rockchip devices, it was
>>> discovered by Ziyuan Xu and Sandy Patterson that we had multiple and for
>>> some cases incomplete isb definitions.  This was causing a failure to
>>> boot of the Linux kernel.
>>>
>>> In order to solve this problem as well as cover any corner cases that we
>>> may also have had a number of changes are made in order to consolidate
>>> things.  First, <asm/barriers.h> now becomes the source of isb/dsb/dmb
>>> definitions.  This however introduces another complexity.  Due to
>>> needing to build SPL for 32bit tegra with -march=armv4 we need to borrow
>>> the __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ logic from the Linux Kernel in a more complete
>>> form.  Move this from arch/arm/lib/Makefile to arch/arm/Makefile and add
>>> a comment about it.  Now that we can always know what the target CPU is
>>> capable off we can get always do the correct thing for the barrier.  The
>>> final part of this is that need to be consistent everywhere and call
>>> isb()/dsb()/dmb() and NOT call ISB/DSB/DMB in some cases and the
>>> function names in others.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Ziyuan Xu <xzy.xu@rock-chips.com>
>>> Reported-by: Sandy Patterson <apatterson@sightlogix.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
>> Great, this rework is similar to linux kernel, and it's better than
>> what I did.  Moreover, it works for my rk3288 boards.
>> Tested-by: Ziyuan Xu <xzy.xu@rock-chips.com>
>>
>> But please can you keep things in alpha order? See below.
> Sure, I'll re-work when applying or reposting if there's any other
> comments.  Thanks!
I wonder does this patch could be applied into the 2016.9 release version?
It's imperative for rockchip rk3288.:-)
>