Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] clk: tegra20: Enable lock-status polling for PLLs
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
To:     Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@nvidia.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, 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>
 <909e2a52-4116-9ee7-db23-8ea1dfffade0@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2e877ee7-2977-496b-5073-772256c76191@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:52:27 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <909e2a52-4116-9ee7-db23-8ea1dfffade0@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 8/31/18 12:45 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 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 <digetx@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> 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.

Actually it has lock-status bit. Not sure how I managed to miss it before.