[PATCH] clk: tegra: use _clk_pll_disable from _program_pll

[PATCH] clk: tegra: use _clk_pll_disable from _program_pll

[Stephen Warren]

From: Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>

_program_pll() was dropping the PLL's lock and calling clk_pll_disable().
clk_pll_disable() does nothing but acquire the same lock and call
_clk_pll_disable(). So, remove the lock manipulation code, and just call
_clk_pll_disable() directly instead.

Reported-by: Sivaram Nair <sivaramn-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
---
Mike, this also will need to go through the Tegra tree; just looking for
any review/ack from you. Thanks.

 drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c |    8 +-------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
index 474ce1f..9f9bb73 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
@@ -339,14 +339,8 @@ static int _program_pll(struct clk_hw *hw, struct tegra_clk_pll_freq_table *cfg,
 	state = clk_pll_is_enabled(hw);
 
 	if (state) {
-		if (pll->lock)
-			spin_unlock_irqrestore(pll->lock, flags);
-
-		clk_pll_disable(hw);
+		_clk_pll_disable(hw);
 		val &= ~(PLL_BASE_BYPASS | PLL_BASE_ENABLE);
-
-		if (pll->lock)
-			spin_lock_irqsave(pll->lock, flags);
 	}
 	pll_writel_base(val, pll);
 
-- 
1.7.10.4

[PATCH] clk: tegra: use _clk_pll_disable from _program_pll

[Stephen Warren]

From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>

_program_pll() was dropping the PLL's lock and calling clk_pll_disable().
clk_pll_disable() does nothing but acquire the same lock and call
_clk_pll_disable(). So, remove the lock manipulation code, and just call
_clk_pll_disable() directly instead.

Reported-by: Sivaram Nair <sivaramn@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
---
Mike, this also will need to go through the Tegra tree; just looking for
any review/ack from you. Thanks.

 drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c |    8 +-------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
index 474ce1f..9f9bb73 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
@@ -339,14 +339,8 @@ static int _program_pll(struct clk_hw *hw, struct tegra_clk_pll_freq_table *cfg,
 	state = clk_pll_is_enabled(hw);
 
 	if (state) {
-		if (pll->lock)
-			spin_unlock_irqrestore(pll->lock, flags);
-
-		clk_pll_disable(hw);
+		_clk_pll_disable(hw);
 		val &= ~(PLL_BASE_BYPASS | PLL_BASE_ENABLE);
-
-		if (pll->lock)
-			spin_lock_irqsave(pll->lock, flags);
 	}
 	pll_writel_base(val, pll);
 
-- 
1.7.10.4

Re: [PATCH] clk: tegra: use _clk_pll_disable from _program_pll

[Mike Turquette]

Quoting Stephen Warren (2013-01-14 10:36:12)
> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
> 
> _program_pll() was dropping the PLL's lock and calling clk_pll_disable().
> clk_pll_disable() does nothing but acquire the same lock and call
> _clk_pll_disable(). So, remove the lock manipulation code, and just call
> _clk_pll_disable() directly instead.
> 
> Reported-by: Sivaram Nair <sivaramn@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
> ---
> Mike, this also will need to go through the Tegra tree; just looking for
> any review/ack from you. Thanks.
> 

Stephen,

This change looks good to me, but should it not be rolled into the tegra
CCF series?  Several patches on top of that series have surfaced; do you
plan on posting a V6?

Regards,
Mike

>  drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c |    8 +-------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
> index 474ce1f..9f9bb73 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
> @@ -339,14 +339,8 @@ static int _program_pll(struct clk_hw *hw, struct tegra_clk_pll_freq_table *cfg,
>         state = clk_pll_is_enabled(hw);
>  
>         if (state) {
> -               if (pll->lock)
> -                       spin_unlock_irqrestore(pll->lock, flags);
> -
> -               clk_pll_disable(hw);
> +               _clk_pll_disable(hw);
>                 val &= ~(PLL_BASE_BYPASS | PLL_BASE_ENABLE);
> -
> -               if (pll->lock)
> -                       spin_lock_irqsave(pll->lock, flags);
>         }
>         pll_writel_base(val, pll);
>  
> -- 
> 1.7.10.4

[PATCH] clk: tegra: use _clk_pll_disable from _program_pll

[Mike Turquette]

Quoting Stephen Warren (2013-01-14 10:36:12)
> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
> 
> _program_pll() was dropping the PLL's lock and calling clk_pll_disable().
> clk_pll_disable() does nothing but acquire the same lock and call
> _clk_pll_disable(). So, remove the lock manipulation code, and just call
> _clk_pll_disable() directly instead.
> 
> Reported-by: Sivaram Nair <sivaramn@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
> ---
> Mike, this also will need to go through the Tegra tree; just looking for
> any review/ack from you. Thanks.
> 

Stephen,

This change looks good to me, but should it not be rolled into the tegra
CCF series?  Several patches on top of that series have surfaced; do you
plan on posting a V6?

Regards,
Mike

>  drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c |    8 +-------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
> index 474ce1f..9f9bb73 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
> @@ -339,14 +339,8 @@ static int _program_pll(struct clk_hw *hw, struct tegra_clk_pll_freq_table *cfg,
>         state = clk_pll_is_enabled(hw);
>  
>         if (state) {
> -               if (pll->lock)
> -                       spin_unlock_irqrestore(pll->lock, flags);
> -
> -               clk_pll_disable(hw);
> +               _clk_pll_disable(hw);
>                 val &= ~(PLL_BASE_BYPASS | PLL_BASE_ENABLE);
> -
> -               if (pll->lock)
> -                       spin_lock_irqsave(pll->lock, flags);
>         }
>         pll_writel_base(val, pll);
>  
> -- 
> 1.7.10.4

Re: [PATCH] clk: tegra: use _clk_pll_disable from _program_pll

[Stephen Warren]

On 01/22/2013 11:31 AM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Stephen Warren (2013-01-14 10:36:12)
>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>>
>> _program_pll() was dropping the PLL's lock and calling clk_pll_disable().
>> clk_pll_disable() does nothing but acquire the same lock and call
>> _clk_pll_disable(). So, remove the lock manipulation code, and just call
>> _clk_pll_disable() directly instead.
>>
>> Reported-by: Sivaram Nair <sivaramn-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>> ---
>> Mike, this also will need to go through the Tegra tree; just looking for
>> any review/ack from you. Thanks.
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> This change looks good to me, but should it not be rolled into the tegra
> CCF series?  Several patches on top of that series have surfaced; do you
> plan on posting a V6?

(in order to help you find the patches in the list) I posted v5 on 1/16
1:52pm Mountain time, and I posted v6 on 1/17 3:05pm Mountain time. For
v6, only patch 1/3 had any modifications relative to v5, so I didn't
repost the other 2 patches.

[PATCH] clk: tegra: use _clk_pll_disable from _program_pll

[Stephen Warren]

On 01/22/2013 11:31 AM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Stephen Warren (2013-01-14 10:36:12)
>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>
>> _program_pll() was dropping the PLL's lock and calling clk_pll_disable().
>> clk_pll_disable() does nothing but acquire the same lock and call
>> _clk_pll_disable(). So, remove the lock manipulation code, and just call
>> _clk_pll_disable() directly instead.
>>
>> Reported-by: Sivaram Nair <sivaramn@nvidia.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>> Mike, this also will need to go through the Tegra tree; just looking for
>> any review/ack from you. Thanks.
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> This change looks good to me, but should it not be rolled into the tegra
> CCF series?  Several patches on top of that series have surfaced; do you
> plan on posting a V6?

(in order to help you find the patches in the list) I posted v5 on 1/16
1:52pm Mountain time, and I posted v6 on 1/17 3:05pm Mountain time. For
v6, only patch 1/3 had any modifications relative to v5, so I didn't
repost the other 2 patches.