[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVLx1d-6=5xx_GLAb7LxxRR9FwhAU56fxNc3b=9wj286g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 15:12:08 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Claudiu <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>
Cc: mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
ulf.hansson@...aro.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jirislaby@...nel.org,
magnus.damm@...il.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com,
biju.das.jz@...renesas.com, quic_bjorande@...cinc.com,
arnd@...db.de, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, neil.armstrong@...aro.org,
nfraprado@...labora.com, rafal@...ecki.pl,
wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/37] clk: renesas: rzg2l: reduce the critical area
Hi Claudiu,
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 6:52 AM Claudiu <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev> wrote:
> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>
>
> spinlock in rzg2l_mod_clock_endisable() is intended to protect the accesses
> to hardware register. There is no need to protect the instructions that set
> temporary variable which will be then written to register. Thus limit the
> spinlock only to the hardware register access.
>
> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>
Thanks for your patch!
> --- a/drivers/clk/renesas/rzg2l-cpg.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/renesas/rzg2l-cpg.c
> @@ -912,13 +912,13 @@ static int rzg2l_mod_clock_endisable(struct clk_hw *hw, bool enable)
>
> dev_dbg(dev, "CLK_ON %u/%pC %s\n", CLK_ON_R(reg), hw->clk,
> enable ? "ON" : "OFF");
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->rmw_lock, flags);
>
> value = bitmask << 16;
> if (enable)
> value |= bitmask;
> - writel(value, priv->base + CLK_ON_R(reg));
>
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->rmw_lock, flags);
> + writel(value, priv->base + CLK_ON_R(reg));
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->rmw_lock, flags);
After this, it becomes obvious there is nothing to protect at all,
so the locking can just be removed from this function?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists