[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200811162358.GA7169@kozik-lap>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:23:58 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
"open list:COMMON CLK FRAMEWORK" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
"moderated list:SAMSUNG SOC CLOCK DRIVERS"
<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clk: samsung: Prevent potential endless loop in the
PLL set_rate ops
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 02:59:07PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi Sylwester,
>
> 2020年8月11日(火) 13:25 Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>:
> >
> > In the .set_rate callback for some PLLs there is a loop polling state
> > of the PLL lock bit and it may become an endless loop when something
> > goes wrong with the PLL. For some PLLs there is already (a duplicated)
> > code for polling with timeout. This patch replaces that code with
> > the readl_relaxed_poll_timeout_atomic() macro and moves it to a common
> > helper function, which is then used for all the PLLs. The downside
> > of switching to the common macro is that we drop the cpu_relax() call.
>
> Tbh. I'm not sure what effect was exactly expected from cpu_relax() in
> the functions which already had timeout handling. Could someone shed
> some light on this?
For us, it should not matter much, except:
1. when on A9 with ARM_ERRATA_754327, but we do not enable it on our
platforms,
2. it is a generic pattern for busy loops.
On other architectures it could mean something (e.g. yield to other
hyper-threading CPU).
Looks good.
Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists