Hi Krzysztof,
On 17 July 2018 at 17:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 17 July 2018 at 12:12, Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> cleanup err check in exynos_tmu_work as clk internal
>> framework will perform if clk is enable/disable
>> so drop the double check of IS_ERR and other such references.
>
> I do not understand the statement. Clock framework will perform if clk
> is enable/disable? How clock can be "enable" or "disable"? You mean
> gate clock? you mean clock pointer is an ERR pointer?
>
if (!IS_ERR(data->clk_sec))
check if the pointer is valid or not
this check is again performed in
clk_enable.
>> CC: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c | 19 ++++++-------------
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c b/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c
>> index 0164c9e..2dbde97 100644
>> --- a/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c
>> @@ -300,8 +300,7 @@ static int exynos_tmu_initialize(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>
>> mutex_lock(&data->lock);
>> clk_enable(data->clk);
>> - if (!IS_ERR(data->clk_sec))
>> - clk_enable(data->clk_sec);
>> + clk_enable(data->clk_sec);
>>
>> status = readb(data->base + EXYNOS_TMU_REG_STATUS);
>> if (!status) {
>> @@ -334,8 +333,7 @@ static int exynos_tmu_initialize(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> err:
>> clk_disable(data->clk);
>> mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>> - if (!IS_ERR(data->clk_sec))
>> - clk_disable(data->clk_sec);
>> + clk_disable(data->clk_sec);
>> out:
>> return ret;
>> }
>> @@ -789,19 +787,16 @@ static void exynos_tmu_work(struct work_struct *work)
>> struct exynos_tmu_data *data = container_of(work,
>> struct exynos_tmu_data, irq_work);
>>
>> - if (!IS_ERR(data->clk_sec))
>> - clk_enable(data->clk_sec);
>> - if (!IS_ERR(data->clk_sec))
>> - clk_disable(data->clk_sec);
>> -
>> thermal_zone_device_update(data->tzd, THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
>>
>> mutex_lock(&data->lock);
>> clk_enable(data->clk);
>> + clk_enable(data->clk_sec);
>
> You are changing here the logic completely. Before the "enable" was
> followed immediately by "disable". Now you are moving disable
> somewhere else... All this looks suspicious...
I chose to move enable/disable of clk_sec this under the mutex lock for safe
which dose the same sequence with different order.
Second approach:
We should get rid of clk_enable/disable in exynos_tmu_work
as this looks unnecessary for toggle clk's on every update.
Best Regards
-Anand
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
