[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <af4dce78-5561-7078-1da7-cef01f187cf3@nvidia.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 12:16:49 -0700
From: Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@...dia.com>
To: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>, <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
<jonathanh@...dia.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<jason@...edaemon.net>, <marc.zyngier@....com>,
<linus.walleij@...aro.org>, <stefan@...er.ch>,
<mark.rutland@....com>
CC: <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>, <pgaikwad@...dia.com>,
<sboyd@...nel.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, <jckuo@...dia.com>,
<josephl@...dia.com>, <talho@...dia.com>,
<linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<mperttunen@...dia.com>, <spatra@...dia.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
<viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 13/21] clk: tegra210: Use fence_udelay during PLLU init
On 8/11/19 11:02 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 09.08.2019 2:46, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
>> This patch uses fence_udelay rather than udelay during PLLU
>> initialization to ensure writes to clock registers happens before
>> waiting for specified delay.
>>
>> Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@...dia.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c | 8 ++++----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c
>> index 4721ee030d1c..998bf60b219a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c
>> @@ -2841,7 +2841,7 @@ static int tegra210_enable_pllu(void)
>> reg = readl_relaxed(clk_base + pllu.params->ext_misc_reg[0]);
>> reg &= ~BIT(pllu.params->iddq_bit_idx);
>> writel_relaxed(reg, clk_base + pllu.params->ext_misc_reg[0]);
>> - udelay(5);
>> + fence_udelay(5, clk_base);
>>
>> reg = readl_relaxed(clk_base + PLLU_BASE);
>> reg &= ~GENMASK(20, 0);
>> @@ -2849,7 +2849,7 @@ static int tegra210_enable_pllu(void)
>> reg |= fentry->n << 8;
>> reg |= fentry->p << 16;
>> writel(reg, clk_base + PLLU_BASE);
>> - udelay(1);
>> + fence_udelay(1, clk_base);
>> reg |= PLL_ENABLE;
>> writel(reg, clk_base + PLLU_BASE);
>>
>> @@ -2895,12 +2895,12 @@ static int tegra210_init_pllu(void)
>> reg = readl_relaxed(clk_base + XUSB_PLL_CFG0);
>> reg &= ~XUSB_PLL_CFG0_PLLU_LOCK_DLY_MASK;
>> writel_relaxed(reg, clk_base + XUSB_PLL_CFG0);
>> - udelay(1);
>> + fence_udelay(1, clk_base);
>>
>> reg = readl_relaxed(clk_base + PLLU_HW_PWRDN_CFG0);
>> reg |= PLLU_HW_PWRDN_CFG0_SEQ_ENABLE;
>> writel_relaxed(reg, clk_base + PLLU_HW_PWRDN_CFG0);
>> - udelay(1);
>> + fence_udelay(1, clk_base);
>>
>> reg = readl_relaxed(clk_base + PLLU_BASE);
>> reg &= ~PLLU_BASE_CLKENABLE_USB;
>>
> The clk_base corresponds to the RESET controller's part of Clock-and-Reset hardware, is it
> okay to read-back the RST register and not the clock for the fencing?
Yes as both reset and clocks are all in same CAR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists