From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Frank Wang <frank.wang@rock-chips.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] phy: rockchip-inno-usb2: add a new driver for
 Rockchip usb2phy
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:43:55 +0800
Message-ID: <98bc69af-c597-d1ee-e83d-c7b5918e9ef4@rock-chips.com>
References: <1466129353-48063-1-git-send-email-frank.wang@rock-chips.com>
 <1466129353-48063-3-git-send-email-frank.wang@rock-chips.com>
 <576383C6.3050005@roeck-us.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <576383C6.3050005@roeck-us.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, heiko@sntech.de
Cc: dianders@chromium.org, groeck@chromium.org, jwerner@chromium.org, kishon@ti.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, galak@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, xzy.xu@rock-chips.com, kever.yang@rock-chips.com, huangtao@rock-chips.com, william.wu@rock-chips.com, frank.wang@rock-chips.com
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

Hi Guenter,

On 2016/6/17 12:59, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 06/16/2016 07:09 PM, Frank Wang wrote:
>> The newer SoCs (rk3366, rk3399) take a different usb-phy IP block
>> than rk3288 and before, and most of phy-related registers are also
>> different from the past, so a new phy driver is required necessarily.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Wang <frank.wang@rock-chips.com>
>> Suggested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
>> Suggested-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
>> Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
>> ---
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> +
>> +static int rockchip_usb2phy_resume(struct phy *phy)
>> +{
>> +    struct rockchip_usb2phy_port *rport = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>> +    struct rockchip_usb2phy *rphy = dev_get_drvdata(phy->dev.parent);
>> +    int ret;
>> +
>> +    dev_dbg(&rport->phy->dev, "port resume\n");
>> +
>> +    ret = clk_prepare_enable(rphy->clk480m);
>> +    if (ret)
>> +        return ret;
>> +
> If suspend can be called multiple times, resume can be called
> multiple times as well. Doesn't this cause a clock imbalance
> if you call clk_prepare_enable() multiple times on resume,
> but clk_disable_unprepare() only once on suspend ?
>

Well, what you said is reasonable, How does something like below?

@@ -307,6 +307,9 @@ static int rockchip_usb2phy_resume(struct phy *phy)

         dev_dbg(&rport->phy->dev, "port resume\n");

+       if (!rport->suspended)
+               return 0;
+
         ret = clk_prepare_enable(rphy->clk480m);
         if (ret)
                 return ret;
@@ -327,12 +330,16 @@ static int rockchip_usb2phy_suspend(struct phy *phy)

         dev_dbg(&rport->phy->dev, "port suspend\n");

+       if (rport->suspended)
+               return 0;
+
         ret = property_enable(rphy, &rport->port_cfg->phy_sus, true);
         if (ret)
                 return ret;

         rport->suspended = true;
         clk_disable_unprepare(rphy->clk480m);
+
         return 0;
  }

@@ -485,6 +492,7 @@ static int rockchip_usb2phy_host_port_init(struct 
rockchip_usb2phy *rphy,

         rport->port_id = USB2PHY_PORT_HOST;
         rport->port_cfg = &rphy->phy_cfg->port_cfgs[USB2PHY_PORT_HOST];
+       rport->suspended = true;

         mutex_init(&rport->mutex);
         INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&rport->sm_work, rockchip_usb2phy_sm_work);


>> +    ret = property_enable(rphy, &rport->port_cfg->phy_sus, false);
>> +    if (ret)
>> +        return ret;
>> +
>> +    rport->suspended = false;
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int rockchip_usb2phy_suspend(struct phy *phy)
>> +{
>> +    struct rockchip_usb2phy_port *rport = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>> +    struct rockchip_usb2phy *rphy = dev_get_drvdata(phy->dev.parent);
>> +    int ret;
>> +
>> +    dev_dbg(&rport->phy->dev, "port suspend\n");
>> +
>> +    if (rport->suspended)
>> +        goto exit;
>> +
>
> I know I am nitpicking, but
>         return 0;
> would be fine here, be more consistent with the rest of the code,
>

Yeah, please see above changes.

BR.
Frank

>> +    ret = property_enable(rphy, &rport->port_cfg->phy_sus, true);
>> +    if (ret)
>> +        return ret;
>> +
>> +    rport->suspended = true;
>> +    clk_disable_unprepare(rphy->clk480m);
>> +
>> +exit:
>> +    return 0;
>
> and this label is really unnecessary.
>
>> +}
>> +
>
> [ ... ]
>