Re: [PATCH 2/4] clk: renesas: rzg2l: Re-assert reset on deassert timeout

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>]

Hi Tommaso,

On Tue, 2 Sept 2025 at 16:26, Tommaso Merciai
<tommaso.merciai.xr@bp.renesas.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 04:16:12PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Sept 2025 at 15:51, Tommaso Merciai
> > <tommaso.merciai.xr@bp.renesas.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 02:18:17PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 at 12:05, Tommaso Merciai
> > > > <tommaso.merciai.xr@bp.renesas.com> wrote:
> > > > > Prevent issues during reset deassertion by re-asserting the reset if a
> > > > > timeout occurs when trying to deassert. This ensures the reset line is in a
> > > > > known state and improves reliability for hardware that may not immediately
> > > > > clear the reset monitor bit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Tommaso Merciai <tommaso.merciai.xr@bp.renesas.com>
> > > >
> > > > > --- a/drivers/clk/renesas/rzg2l-cpg.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/clk/renesas/rzg2l-cpg.c
> > > > > @@ -1667,9 +1667,16 @@ static int __rzg2l_cpg_assert(struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev,
> > > > >                 return 0;
> > > > >         }
> > > > >
> > > > > -       return readl_poll_timeout_atomic(priv->base + reg, value,
> > > > > -                                        assert ? (value & mask) : !(value & mask),
> > > > > -                                        10, 200);
> > > > > +       ret = readl_poll_timeout_atomic(priv->base + reg, value,
> > > > > +                                       assert ? (value & mask) : !(value & mask),
> > > > > +                                       10, 200);
> > > > > +       if (ret && !assert) {
> > > > > +               dev_warn(rcdev->dev, "deassert timeout, re-asserting reset id %ld\n", id);
> > > > > +               value = mask << 16;
> > > > > +               writel(value, priv->base + CLK_RST_R(info->resets[id].off));
> > > > > +       }
> > > >
> > > > Is this an issue you've seen during actual use?
> > > > Would it make sense to print warnings on assertion timeouts, too?
> > >
> > > I haven’t observed any assertion timeout issues during actual use,
> > > so maybe printing warnings on assertion may not be necessary.
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > Have you seen deassertion timeouts?
>
> I haven’t seen any deassertion timeouts either.
>
> > I would rather not print a warning.  The error code would be propagated
> > up anyway.
>
> If for you is ok.
> I will drop dev_warn() on both:
>
>         - __rzg2l_cpg_assert()
>         - __rzv2h_cpg_assert()
>
> in v2.
> Please gently le me know.

Please drop dev_warn() on both. Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds