[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2472708.6oReK8jXV2@diego>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 22:50:33 +0200
From: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: huang lin <hl@...k-chips.com>,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] pinctrl: rockchip: only enable gpio clock when it setting
Am Montag, 3. August 2015, 13:21:27 schrieb Doug Anderson:
> hl
>
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 8:56 PM, huang lin <hl@...k-chips.com> wrote:
> > gpio can keep state even the clock disable, for save power
> > consumption, only enable gpio clock when it setting
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
> > Signed-off-by: huang lin <hl@...k-chips.com>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: huang lin <hl@...k-chips.com>
>
> Your "Signed-off-by"s are a little wonky here... Can you fix up?
>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rockchip.c | 60
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+),
> > 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rockchip.c
> > b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rockchip.c index cc2843a..445829f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rockchip.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rockchip.c
> > @@ -945,17 +945,20 @@ static int _rockchip_pmx_gpio_set_direction(struct
> > gpio_chip *chip,>
> > if (ret < 0)
> >
> > return ret;
> >
> > + clk_enable(bank->clk);
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&bank->slock, flags);
> >
> > - data = readl_relaxed(bank->reg_base + GPIO_SWPORT_DDR);
> > + data = readl(bank->reg_base + GPIO_SWPORT_DDR);
>
> I am a little curious why you need to change the readl_relaxed() to a
> read(). Are you trying to ensure that the clock was on before the
> read happened? If so, I think this won't help. I see:
>
> #define readl(c) ({ u32 __v = readl_relaxed(c); __iormb(); __v; })
>
> ...so that means that the iormb() is _after_ the readl.
>
> ...but I would believe that the clk_enable() call itself would be
> guaranteeing that the clock was enabled in time. ...and if not then
> grabbing the spinlock is another barrier, right? I think you do this
> in a few places...
>
> Other than that this patch looks good to me....
I think that was my fault ... looking at stuff before figuring out that we're
actually loosing the pd_pmu clock, and then forgetting to take this out again,
before getting it to hl.
In retospect it also seems silly to have changed them in the first place ;-) .
So yes, they should be changed back to their original.
Heiko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists