[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVtBoTRB7dMvxjwwhOXVUDS8LtZQsVcMctaxBU_J7HWwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:05:48 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: claudiu beznea <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 Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 7:51 AM claudiu beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev> wrote:
> On 14.09.2023 16:12, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I tend to be paranoid when writing to hardware resources thus I kept it.
> Would you prefer to remove it at all?
Yes please. I guess this was copied from R-Car and friends, where
there is a RMW operation on an MSTPCR register.
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