Quoting Mika Westerberg (2023-09-07 21:59:46) > On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 01:11:17PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > We can't use readl_busy_timeout() (you mean readl_poll_timeout() right?) > > because that implements the timeout with timekeeping and we don't know > > if this is called from suspend paths after timekeeping is suspended or > > from early boot paths where timekeeping isn't started. > > Yes readl_poll_timeout(). :) > > I don't think this code is used anymore outside of regular paths. It > used to be with the Moorestown/Medfield board support code but that's > gone already. Grepping for the users also don't reveal anything that > could be using it early at boot. Ok. Assuming this isn't used from paths during suspend/resume when timekeeping is suspended it look like readl_poll_timeout() is the shorter and simpler approach. So if that works for you I'll send another round with that and a fix for the ipcdev being overwritten.