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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: samsung: Prevent potential endless loop in the PLL
 set_rate ops
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>
Cc:     COMMON CLK FRAMEWORK <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>,
        Mike Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        SAMSUNG SOC CLOCK DRIVERS <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
From:   Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>
Message-ID: <6736f3d1-31de-6be4-2b1b-50c776025b72@samsung.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Aug 2020 18:19:14 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
        Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <159683164115.1360974.9195158180168134577@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
CMS-TYPE: 201P
References: <CGME20200806160653eucas1p2b7fd860f5d89589cf9df0ad0f8d3981f@eucas1p2.samsung.com>
        <20200806160646.1997-1-s.nawrocki@samsung.com>
        <CA+Ln22HGSj4gFRmw1rSLaTvw3TiPC9jaM6JB4Z1fbxpwsWNZWw@mail.gmail.com>
        <d980e369-73ef-89a8-6669-f7e9c5dd3243@samsung.com>
        <159683164115.1360974.9195158180168134577@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 07.08.2020 22:20, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Sylwester Nawrocki (2020-08-07 10:06:08)

>> On 8/6/20 18:11, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>> --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c
>>>> @@ -63,6 +63,27 @@ static long samsung_pll_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
>>>>         return rate_table[i - 1].rate;
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> +static int samsung_pll_lock_wait(struct samsung_clk_pll *pll,
>>>> +                                unsigned int reg_mask)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       ktime_t timeout;
>>>> +
>>>> +       /* Wait until the PLL is in steady locked state */
>>>> +       timeout = ktime_add_ms(ktime_get(), PLL_TIMEOUT_MS);
>>>> +
>>>> +       while (!(readl_relaxed(pll->con_reg) & reg_mask)) {
>>>> +               if (ktime_after(ktime_get(), timeout)) {
>>>> +                       pr_err("%s: Could not lock PLL %s\n",
>>>> +                               __func__, clk_hw_get_name(&pll->hw));
>>>> +                       return -EFAULT;
>>>> +               }
>>>> +
>>>> +               cpu_relax();
>>>> +       }
>>
>>> Thanks for the patch! Good to have this consolidated. How about going
>>> one step further and using the generic
>>> readl_relaxed_poll_timeout_atomic() helper?
>>
>> Might be a good suggestion, I was considering those helpers but ended
>> up not using them in the patch. The cpu_relax() call might also not be
>> really needed now, when there is the ktime code within the loop.
>> Having multiple occurrences of readl_relaxed_poll_timeout_atomic() could
>> increase the code size due to inlining. How about keeping the 
>> samsung_pll_lock_wait() function and just changing its implementation?
> 
> None of these concerns are mentioned in the commit text. And they seem
> like problems that should be addressed if they're actually problems vs.
> avoiding a common macro and not mentioning them.

Sure, I will improve the commit text, I just didn't investigate in detail
how the common macro could or could not be used before Tomasz's review.