From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] clk: tegra20: Enable lock-status polling for PLLs To: Peter De Schrijver Cc: Thierry Reding , Jonathan Hunter , Prashant Gaikwad , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20180830184210.5369-1-digetx@gmail.com> <20180830184210.5369-2-digetx@gmail.com> <20180831092948.GP1636@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com> From: Dmitry Osipenko Message-ID: <909e2a52-4116-9ee7-db23-8ea1dfffade0@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:45:17 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180831092948.GP1636@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-ID: On 8/31/18 12:29 PM, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 09:42:10PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> Currently all PLL's on Tegra20 use a hardcoded delay despite of having >> a lock-status bit. The lock-status polling was disabled ~7 years ago >> because PLLE was failing to lock and was a suspicion that other PLLs >> might be faulty too. Other PLLs are okay, hence enable the lock-status >> polling for them. This reduces delay of any operation that require PLL >> to lock. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko >> --- >> >> Changelog: >> >> v2: Don't enable polling for PLLE as it known to not being able to lock. >> > > This isn't correct. The lock bit of PLLE can declare lock too early, but the > PLL itself does lock. Indeed, it locks but can't be polled for the lock-status as it doesn't have the lock-status bit. Do you want me to adjust the commit description or it is fine as is? It is also a bit odd that PLLE has "lock_delay = 0", is it correct?