From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Norris Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] phy: rockchip-emmc: use regmap_read_poll_timeout to poll dllrdy Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 18:07:52 -0800 Message-ID: <20180105020749.GA166692@google.com> References: <1514859720-151161-2-git-send-email-shawn.lin@rock-chips.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1514859720-151161-2-git-send-email-shawn.lin@rock-chips.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Shawn Lin Cc: Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Heiko Stuebner , Ziyuan Xu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Douglas Anderson , linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-rockchip.vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 10:22:00AM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote: > Just use the API instead of open-coding it, no functional change > intended. > > Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin > --- > > drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-emmc.c | 21 +++++++-------------- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-emmc.c b/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-emmc.c > index 512a6ef..c65979b 100644 > --- a/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-emmc.c > +++ b/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-emmc.c > @@ -79,6 +79,9 @@ > #define PHYCTRL_IS_CALDONE(x) \ > ((((x) >> PHYCTRL_CALDONE_SHIFT) & \ > PHYCTRL_CALDONE_MASK) == PHYCTRL_CALDONE_DONE) > +#define PHYCTRL_IS_DLLRDY(x) \ > + ((((x) >> PHYCTRL_DLLRDY_SHIFT) & \ > + PHYCTRL_DLLRDY_MASK) == PHYCTRL_DLLRDY_DONE) > > struct rockchip_emmc_phy { > unsigned int reg_offset; > @@ -93,7 +96,6 @@ static int rockchip_emmc_phy_power(struct phy *phy, bool on_off) > unsigned int dllrdy; > unsigned int freqsel = PHYCTRL_FREQSEL_200M; > unsigned long rate; > - unsigned long timeout; > > /* > * Keep phyctrl_pdb and phyctrl_endll low to allow > @@ -222,19 +224,10 @@ static int rockchip_emmc_phy_power(struct phy *phy, bool on_off) > * only at boot / resume. In both cases, eMMC is probably on the > * critical path so busy waiting a little extra time should be OK. ^^ The above comments talk about busy-waiting, keeping this short, and critical paths. With a sleeping implementation (like regmap_read_poll_timeout()) that doesn't quite match, does it? I'd think you might at least change the wording a little to avoid calling it "busy wait". Brian > */ > - timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(50); > - do { > - udelay(1); > - > - regmap_read(rk_phy->reg_base, > - rk_phy->reg_offset + GRF_EMMCPHY_STATUS, > - &dllrdy); > - dllrdy = (dllrdy >> PHYCTRL_DLLRDY_SHIFT) & PHYCTRL_DLLRDY_MASK; > - if (dllrdy == PHYCTRL_DLLRDY_DONE) > - break; > - } while (!time_after(jiffies, timeout)); > - > - if (dllrdy != PHYCTRL_DLLRDY_DONE) { > + if (regmap_read_poll_timeout(rk_phy->reg_base, > + rk_phy->reg_offset + GRF_EMMCPHY_STATUS, > + dllrdy, PHYCTRL_IS_DLLRDY(dllrdy), > + 1, 50 * USEC_PER_MSEC)) { > pr_err("rockchip_emmc_phy_power: dllrdy timeout.\n"); > return -ETIMEDOUT; > }