[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=VxLR6v3vyimjznrqa1Tj5rPziPQX7Pt+wJRR+xm1N-0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:28:15 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...gle.com>
To: vbadigan@...eaurora.org
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Asutosh Das <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>, riteshh@...eaurora.org,
stummala@...eaurora.org, sayalil@...eaurora.org,
Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mmc: sdhci-msm: Re-initialize DLL if MCLK is gated dynamically
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:05 AM Veerabhadrarao Badiganti
<vbadigan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> + /*
> + * Whenever core-clock is gated dynamically, it's needed to
> + * re-initialize the DLL when the clock is ungated.
> + */
> + if (msm_host->restore_dll_cfg_needed && msm_host->clk_rate) {
> + msm_host->restore_dll_cfg = true;
> + mmc_retune_needed(host->mmc);
Using the boolean "restore_dll_cfg" to communicate like this seems
really fragile. I have no basis in fact, but I worry that something
will happen in the meantime that really ought to invalidate the
"saved_tuning_phase" but the boolean will still be set.
Is there a reason you can't just call msm_config_cm_dll_phase()
directly from sdhci_msm_runtime_resume()? Perhaps after the
clk_bulk_prepare_enable() call below?
-Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists