Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200528074530.1.Ib86e5b406fe7d16575ae1bb276d650faa144b63c@changeid>
In-Reply-To: <20200528074530.1.Ib86e5b406fe7d16575ae1bb276d650faa144b63c@changeid>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:52:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=W9=cWZpW10ecG9_DmpWCEVhJ9C_AzbP4fTqdPQFZPhZw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: rpmh-rsc: Don't use ktime for timeout in write_tcs_reg_sync()
To:     Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc:     Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Bjorn and Andy,

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:48 AM Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> The write_tcs_reg_sync() may be called after timekeeping is suspended
> so it's not OK to use ktime.  The readl_poll_timeout_atomic() macro
> implicitly uses ktime.  This was causing a warning at suspend time.
>
> Change to just loop 1000000 times with a delay of 1 us between loops.
> This may give a timeout of more than 1 second but never less and is
> safe even if timekeeping is suspended.
>
> NOTE: I don't have any actual evidence that we need to loop here.
> It's possibly that all we really need to do is just read the value
> back to ensure that the pipes are cleaned and the looping/comparing is
> totally not needed.  I never saw the loop being needed in my tests.
> However, the loop shouldn't hurt.
>
> Fixes: 91160150aba0 ("soc: qcom: rpmh-rsc: Timeout after 1 second in write_tcs_reg_sync()")
> Reported-by: Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
>
>  drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Is it a good time to land this change now that -rc1 has come out?
It'd be nice to get this resolved.

Thanks!

-Doug