All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
	<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
	Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: at91: avoid sleeping early
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:20:15 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190924202015.EFEBF20640@mail.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190924122147.fojcu5u44letrele@pengutronix.de>

Quoting Uwe  (2019-09-24 05:21:47)
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 05:39:06PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > Note that this was already discussed a while ago and Arnd said this approach was
> > reasonable:
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6120818.MyeJZ74hYa@wuerfel/
> > 
> >  drivers/clk/at91/clk-main.c |  5 ++++-
> >  drivers/clk/at91/sckc.c     | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
> >  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/clk-main.c b/drivers/clk/at91/clk-main.c
> > index f607ee702c83..ccd48e7a3d74 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/at91/clk-main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/clk-main.c
> > @@ -293,7 +293,10 @@ static int clk_main_probe_frequency(struct regmap *regmap)
> >               regmap_read(regmap, AT91_CKGR_MCFR, &mcfr);
> >               if (mcfr & AT91_PMC_MAINRDY)
> >                       return 0;
> > -             usleep_range(MAINF_LOOP_MIN_WAIT, MAINF_LOOP_MAX_WAIT);
> > +             if (system_state < SYSTEM_RUNNING)
> > +                     udelay(MAINF_LOOP_MIN_WAIT);
> > +             else
> > +                     usleep_range(MAINF_LOOP_MIN_WAIT, MAINF_LOOP_MAX_WAIT);
> 
> Given that this construct is introduced several times, I wonder if we
> want something like:
> 
>         static inline void early_usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
>         {
>                 if (system_state < SYSTEM_RUNNING)
>                         udelay(min);
>                 else
>                         usleep_range(min, max);
>         }
> 

Maybe, but I think the intent is to not encourage this behavior? So
providing a wrapper will make it "easy" and then we'll have to tell
users to stop calling it. Another idea would be to make usleep_range()
"do the right thing" and call udelay if the system isn't running. And
another idea from tlgx[1] is to pull the delay logic into another clk op
that we can call to see when the enable or prepare is done. That may be
possible by introducing another clk_ops callback that when present
indicates we should sleep or delay for so much time while waiting for
the prepare or enable to complete.

[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.11.1606061448010.28031@nanos


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
	<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com>,
	linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: at91: avoid sleeping early
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:20:15 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190924202015.EFEBF20640@mail.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190924122147.fojcu5u44letrele@pengutronix.de>

Quoting Uwe  (2019-09-24 05:21:47)
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 05:39:06PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > Note that this was already discussed a while ago and Arnd said this approach was
> > reasonable:
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6120818.MyeJZ74hYa@wuerfel/
> > 
> >  drivers/clk/at91/clk-main.c |  5 ++++-
> >  drivers/clk/at91/sckc.c     | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
> >  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/clk-main.c b/drivers/clk/at91/clk-main.c
> > index f607ee702c83..ccd48e7a3d74 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/at91/clk-main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/clk-main.c
> > @@ -293,7 +293,10 @@ static int clk_main_probe_frequency(struct regmap *regmap)
> >               regmap_read(regmap, AT91_CKGR_MCFR, &mcfr);
> >               if (mcfr & AT91_PMC_MAINRDY)
> >                       return 0;
> > -             usleep_range(MAINF_LOOP_MIN_WAIT, MAINF_LOOP_MAX_WAIT);
> > +             if (system_state < SYSTEM_RUNNING)
> > +                     udelay(MAINF_LOOP_MIN_WAIT);
> > +             else
> > +                     usleep_range(MAINF_LOOP_MIN_WAIT, MAINF_LOOP_MAX_WAIT);
> 
> Given that this construct is introduced several times, I wonder if we
> want something like:
> 
>         static inline void early_usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
>         {
>                 if (system_state < SYSTEM_RUNNING)
>                         udelay(min);
>                 else
>                         usleep_range(min, max);
>         }
> 

Maybe, but I think the intent is to not encourage this behavior? So
providing a wrapper will make it "easy" and then we'll have to tell
users to stop calling it. Another idea would be to make usleep_range()
"do the right thing" and call udelay if the system isn't running. And
another idea from tlgx[1] is to pull the delay logic into another clk op
that we can call to see when the enable or prepare is done. That may be
possible by introducing another clk_ops callback that when present
indicates we should sleep or delay for so much time while waiting for
the prepare or enable to complete.

[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.11.1606061448010.28031@nanos


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2019-09-24 20:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-20 15:39 [PATCH] clk: at91: avoid sleeping early Alexandre Belloni
2019-09-20 15:39 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-09-23 16:58 ` Stephen Boyd
2019-09-23 21:34   ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-09-23 21:34     ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-09-24 12:21 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2019-09-24 12:21   ` Uwe Kleine-König
2019-09-24 20:20   ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2019-09-24 20:20     ` Stephen Boyd
2019-10-05 20:05     ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-10-05 20:05       ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-10-28 14:54       ` Stephen Boyd
2019-10-28 14:54         ` Stephen Boyd

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190924202015.EFEBF20640@mail.kernel.org \
    --to=sboyd@kernel.org \
    --cc=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
    --cc=claudiu.beznea@microchip.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
    --cc=nicolas.ferre@microchip.com \
    --cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.