Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754131Ab3JVRG1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:06:27 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:40774 "EHLO mail-wi0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752511Ab3JVRGZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:06:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:06:21 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Zubair Lutfullah , sameo@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: ti_am335x_tscadc: fix spin lock and reg_cache Message-ID: <20131022170621.GB2620@lee--X1> References: <1375729845-6992-1-git-send-email-zubair.lutfullah@gmail.com> <20130807084054.GA18668@lee--X1> <52667A6C.6000301@linutronix.de> <20131022160523.GB24024@lee--X1> <5266AA0F.1030603@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5266AA0F.1030603@linutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1596 Lines: 39 On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 10/22/2013 06:05 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > >> I added reg_se_cache to cache the content of REG_SE once and > >> synchronize it among TSC & ADC access. REG_SE is set to 0 by the HW > >> after "work" has been done. So you need to know the old value or TSC may > >> disable ADC and the other way around. > > > > Yep, it's initialised as '0'. > > > > 12.5.1.15 STEPENABLE Register (offset = 54h) [reset = 0h] > > Ehm yes but!. After init it is set to 0, correct. The value was never > read from the HW. It was always set via am335x_tsc_se_set() to "cache > | argument" and written to HW from both sides (TSC, ADC). This > initialization is done at ->probe() time in both drivers. > > The value remains (remained) constant over the whole time > so both drivers only called am335x_tsc_se_update() to set the value > (the enabled steps of both sides) back to the register (because after > the conversation the value was 0 according to my memory) and since > 32bit reads are atomic I didn't use a lock here. Hmm.. I'm starting to see what you mean. So what's the point of the read before write then? Why don't you use the cache all of the time? -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/