Quoting Heiko Stuebner (2020-01-13 07:26:56)
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-pll.c b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-pll.c
> index 198417d56300..37378ded0993 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-pll.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-pll.c
> @@ -118,12 +118,30 @@ static int rockchip_pll_wait_lock(struct rockchip_clk_pll *pll)
> #define RK3036_PLLCON1_REFDIV_SHIFT 0
> #define RK3036_PLLCON1_POSTDIV2_MASK 0x7
> #define RK3036_PLLCON1_POSTDIV2_SHIFT 6
> +#define RK3036_PLLCON1_LOCK_STATUS BIT(10)
> #define RK3036_PLLCON1_DSMPD_MASK 0x1
> #define RK3036_PLLCON1_DSMPD_SHIFT 12
> +#define RK3036_PLLCON1_PWRDOWN BIT(13)
> #define RK3036_PLLCON2_FRAC_MASK 0xffffff
> #define RK3036_PLLCON2_FRAC_SHIFT 0
>
> -#define RK3036_PLLCON1_PWRDOWN (1 << 13)
> +static int rockchip_rk3036_pll_wait_lock(struct rockchip_clk_pll *pll)
> +{
> + u32 pllcon;
> + int delay = 24000000;
> +
> + /* poll check the lock status in rk3399 xPLLCON2 */
> + while (delay > 0) {
> + pllcon = readl_relaxed(pll->reg_base + RK3036_PLLCON(1));
> + if (pllcon & RK3036_PLLCON1_LOCK_STATUS)
> + return 0;
> +
> + delay--;
There isn't any udelay here. So the timeout is just as fast as the CPU
can churn through this? Why not use an actual time? Or use the
readl_poll_timeout() APIs?
> + }
> +
> + pr_err("%s: timeout waiting for pll to lock\n", __func__);
> + return -ETIMEDOUT;
> +}
>
> static void rockchip_rk3036_pll_get_params(struct rockchip_clk_pll *pll,
> struct rockchip_pll_rate_table *rate)
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
