(dropping unrelated addresses from Cc list)
On 04/24/2017 01:18 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki
<s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 04/22/2017 05:22 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
@@ -354,10 +359,12 @@ static int samsung_pll36xx_set_rate(struct clk_hw
*hw, unsigned long drate,
writel_relaxed(pll_con1, pll->con_reg + 4);
/* wait_lock_time */
- do {
- cpu_relax();
- tmp = readl_relaxed(pll->con_reg);
- } while (!(tmp & (1 << PLL36XX_LOCK_STAT_SHIFT)));
I will add a comment here like:
/* Wait until the PLL is locked if it is enabled. */
+ if (pll_con0 & BIT(pll->enable_offs)) {
Why this additional if() is needed?
The PLL will never transition to a locked state if it is disabled, without
this test we would end up with an indefinite loop below.
Hmmm... shouldn't this be split from this change? Or maybe this is
needed only because you added enable/disable for pl36xx and previously
this was not existing?
Yes, it looks like previously the PLLs were always on after were enabled.
I wouldn't be separating that part, as it's all logically dependent.
Just the commit message might need some improvement.
--
Thanks,
Sylwester
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
