On 03/11/17 17:43, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 10/30, Tero Kristo wrote:
This will happen on certain platforms when entering / leaving suspend
and the system attempts to disable certain clocks at very early/late
phase, burping out a warning from timekeeping core. Avoid the issue
by checking if the timekeeping is suspended and using the fallback
udelay approach for checking timeouts.
Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx>
---
drivers/clk/ti/clkctrl.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/ti/clkctrl.c b/drivers/clk/ti/clkctrl.c
index 284ba449..91ddc92 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/ti/clkctrl.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/ti/clkctrl.c
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
#include <linux/of_address.h>
#include <linux/clk/ti.h>
#include <linux/delay.h>
+#include <linux/timekeeping.h>
#include "clock.h"
#define NO_IDLEST 0x1
@@ -90,7 +91,7 @@ static bool _omap4_is_ready(u32 val)
static bool _omap4_is_timeout(union omap4_timeout *time, u32 timeout)
{
- if (unlikely(_early_timeout)) {
+ if (unlikely(_early_timeout || timekeeping_suspended)) {
if (time->cycles++ < timeout) {
This would be the second user of timekeeping_suspended outside of
timekeeping core. Why don't we just udelay(1) every time we call
this function? The loop on ktime without any sort of delay in it
may actually spin faster, especially because we can't get
interrupted here (irqs are off). And irqs + preemption enabled is
typically where you would want to use ktime instead of counting
udelay() calls to see if you hit a timeout.
It actually was originally just udelay() but I changed it to use the
ktime_get() approach way back due to comments provided on some early
revisions of this patch. See: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7884371/
This code seems over-complicated given the constraints at the
call-sites.
True, I can easily change it to just use udelay() if wanted.
-Tero
--
Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki. Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
