On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 09:46:28AM +0100, Charles Keepax wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 04:45:02AM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
>> From: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> [ Upstream commit ed784c532a3d0959db488f40a96c5127f63d42dc ]
>>
>> The delay here is not in atomic context and does not seem critical with
>> respect to precision, but usleep_range(min,max) with min==max results in
>> giving the timer subsystem no room to optimize uncritical delays. Fix
>> this by setting the range to 2000,3000 us.
>>
>> Fixes: commit f05259a6ffa4 ("clk: wm831x: Add initial WM831x clock driver")
>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Acked-by: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/clk/clk-wm831x.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-wm831x.c b/drivers/clk/clk-wm831x.c
>> index 763aed2de893..dfedcf5bc429 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk-wm831x.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-wm831x.c
>> @@ -101,7 +101,8 @@ static int wm831x_fll_prepare(struct clk_hw *hw)
>> if (ret != 0)
>> dev_crit(wm831x->dev, "Failed to enable FLL: %d\n", ret);
>>
>> - usleep_range(2000, 2000);
>> + /* wait 2-3 ms for new frequency taking effect */
>> + usleep_range(2000, 3000);
>
>Does this patch really make sense for stable, isn't this really
>just a small optimisation? The patch is pretty harmless so I
>can't see applying it causing any problems, just curious what
>problems not having it is causing.
Looking back at this, I think I misunderstood a scenario in the scheduler this might be causing. What you say makes sense, I'll drop it.
--
Thanks,
Sasha