From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:21:29 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 25/40] ARM: imx: add common clock support for clk busy
In-Reply-To: <20120411065305.GH3852@pengutronix.de>
References: <1334065553-7565-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
 <1334065553-7565-26-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
 <4F848301.4080607@codeaurora.org> <20120411065305.GH3852@pengutronix.de>
Message-ID: <4F8603E9.1080607@codeaurora.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 04/10/12 23:53, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:59:13AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 04/10/12 06:45, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>>> +static int clk_busy_wait(void __iomem *reg, u8 shift)
>>> +{
>>> +	unsigned long timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(10);
>>> +
>>> +	while (readl_relaxed(reg) & (1 << shift))
>>> +		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout))
>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> +
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>> MSM also has a bit to poll to see if a clock is enabled or not, similar
>> to this rate switch complete bit. Would it make sense to have another
>> few clock ops like wait_for_enable(), wait_for_rate(),
>> wait_for_disable()? Then you should be able to copy the basic divider
>> ops and assign the wait ops and avoid the wrappers.
> I think this won't work. What arguments would your wait_for_* functions
> take?

I assume the same as what all the other ops take.

wait_for_disable(struct clk_hw *hw)
wait_for_enable(struct clk_hw *hw)
wait_for_rate(struct clk_hw *hw)

Do you see the need for anything else?

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.