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;
Date:   Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:55:03 -0800
From:   Paul Burton <paulburton@kernel.org>
To:     Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>,
        Zhou Yanjie <zhouyanjie@zoho.com>
Cc:     linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        robh+dt@kernel.org, paul.burton@mips.com, mturquette@baylibre.com,
        sboyd@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, syq@debian.org,
        sernia.zhou@foxmail.com, zhenwenjin@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] clk: Ingenic: Adjust code to make it compatible with
 X1830.
Message-ID: <20191210225503.nf77ksu2sznngbp2@lantea.localdomain>
References: <1574825576-91028-1-git-send-email-zhouyanjie@zoho.com>
 <1574825576-91028-2-git-send-email-zhouyanjie@zoho.com>
 <1574876253.3.4@crapouillou.net>
 <5DDF694B.1000902@zoho.com>
 <1575026622.3.2@crapouillou.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
In-Reply-To: <1575026622.3.2@crapouillou.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Paul, Zhou,

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 12:23:42PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > > > @@ -93,8 +93,17 @@ ingenic_pll_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> > > > unsigned long parent_rate)
> > > >      n += pll_info->n_offset;
> > > >      od_enc = ctl >> pll_info->od_shift;
> > > >      od_enc &= GENMASK(pll_info->od_bits - 1, 0);
> > > > -    bypass = !pll_info->no_bypass_bit &&
> > > > -         !!(ctl & BIT(pll_info->bypass_bit));
> > > > +
> > > > +    if (pll_info->version >= CGU_X1830) {
> > > > +        spin_lock_irqsave(&cgu->lock, flags);
> > > > +        ctl = readl(cgu->base + pll_info->reg[0]);
> > > > +        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cgu->lock, flags);
> > > 
> > > Why the spinlock?
> > > 
> > 
> > The original code used spinlock when reading the control register,
> > so when reading this new control register, I think it should also
> > be added with spinlock.
> 
> Well, the original code looks wrong to me. There's nothing to protect here.
> 
> Maybe @Paul Burton can shed some light?

I wish I could remember, but I agree it seems pointless here. The only
way I can think it could be of any use is if writes to the CGU register
we're accessing aren't atomic (ie. if we could observe a partially
completed write), but I don't believe that's the case.

So Zhou, if you want to drop the spinlock here from your X1830 path &
ideally also add a patch to remove it in the non-X1830 path that would
be great.

Thanks,
    Paul