On 07.08.2020 22:20, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Sylwester Nawrocki (2020-08-07 10:06:08)
>> 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?
>
> None of these concerns are mentioned in the commit text. And they seem
> like problems that should be addressed if they're actually problems vs.
> avoiding a common macro and not mentioning them.
Sure, I will improve the commit text, I just didn't investigate in detail
how the common macro could or could not be used before Tomasz's review.
