[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180903080111.GR1636@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 11:01:11 +0300
From: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
To: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
CC: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@...dia.com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] clk: tegra20: Enable lock-status polling for PLLs
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:45:17PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 8/31/18 12:29 PM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 09:42:10PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> Currently all PLL's on Tegra20 use a hardcoded delay despite of having
> >> a lock-status bit. The lock-status polling was disabled ~7 years ago
> >> because PLLE was failing to lock and was a suspicion that other PLLs
> >> might be faulty too. Other PLLs are okay, hence enable the lock-status
> >> polling for them. This reduces delay of any operation that require PLL
> >> to lock.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Changelog:
> >>
> >> v2: Don't enable polling for PLLE as it known to not being able to lock.
> >>
> >
> > This isn't correct. The lock bit of PLLE can declare lock too early, but the
> > PLL itself does lock.
>
> Indeed, it locks but can't be polled for the lock-status as it doesn't have the
> lock-status bit.
>
> Do you want me to adjust the commit description or it is fine as is?
>
I think it's better to adjust it.
> It is also a bit odd that PLLE has "lock_delay = 0", is it correct?
That seems odd yes..
Peter.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists