[PATCH 2/3] sunxi: spl: initialise timer before clocks

[Jernej Škrabec]

Dne sobota, 2. avgust 2025 ob 01:49:17 Srednjeevropski poletni čas je Andre Przywara napisal(a):
> Recent changes in the H6 clock code added delay() calls into the SPL clock
> setup routine, which requires the timers to work. When compiling for
> AArch64, we are always using the Arm Generic Timer (aka. arch timer),
> which does not require further setup, hence having an empty timer_init()
> routine.
> However for 32-bit SoCs we use the Allwinner timers, which require some
> setup routine, and hence we need timer_init() to be called before
> clock_init().
> 
> Swap the order of the two calls, to be more robust when compiling the H6
> clock code for AArch32 or when using the Allwinner timers for whatever
> reason.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara at arm.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-sunxi/board.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/board.c b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/board.c
> index fb4837c2082..432b1c10f92 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/board.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/board.c
> @@ -476,8 +476,8 @@ void board_init_f(ulong dummy)
>  	/* Enable non-secure access to some peripherals */
>  	tzpc_init();
>  
> -	clock_init();
>  	timer_init();
> +	clock_init();

I contemplated similar change in past. It works fine for 64-bit architectures,
but I'm unsure for 32-bit. If you take a look at A83t clock code, it uses
sdelay() exactly because timer is not initialized at that time.

So, are you sure that this change has no unwanted side effects?

Best regards,
Jernej

>  	gpio_init();
>  
>  	spl_init();
>