2020年8月7日(金) 19:06 Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Hi Tomasz,
>
> On 8/6/20 18:11, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >> --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c
> >> @@ -63,6 +63,27 @@ static long samsung_pll_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> >> return rate_table[i - 1].rate;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static int samsung_pll_lock_wait(struct samsung_clk_pll *pll,
> >> + unsigned int reg_mask)
> >> +{
> >> + ktime_t timeout;
> >> +
> >> + /* Wait until the PLL is in steady locked state */
> >> + timeout = ktime_add_ms(ktime_get(), PLL_TIMEOUT_MS);
> >> +
> >> + while (!(readl_relaxed(pll->con_reg) & reg_mask)) {
> >> + if (ktime_after(ktime_get(), timeout)) {
> >> + pr_err("%s: Could not lock PLL %s\n",
> >> + __func__, clk_hw_get_name(&pll->hw));
> >> + return -EFAULT;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + cpu_relax();
> >> + }
>
> > Thanks for the patch! Good to have this consolidated. How about going
> > one step further and using the generic
> > readl_relaxed_poll_timeout_atomic() helper?
>
> Might be a good suggestion, I was considering those helpers but ended
> up not using them in the patch. The cpu_relax() call might also not be
> really needed now, when there is the ktime code within the loop.
> Having multiple occurrences of readl_relaxed_poll_timeout_atomic() could
> increase the code size due to inlining. How about keeping the
> samsung_pll_lock_wait() function and just changing its implementation?
Sounds good to me, thanks!
Best regards,
Tomasz
