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;
Date:   Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:23:58 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
To:     Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>
Cc:     Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>,
        "open list:COMMON CLK FRAMEWORK" <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Mike Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        "moderated list: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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clk: samsung: Prevent potential endless loop in the
 PLL set_rate ops
Message-ID: <20200811162358.GA7169@kozik-lap>
References: <CGME20200811112518eucas1p2a751f664a907ac7cd8e1dd235dc2fa54@eucas1p2.samsung.com>
 <20200811112507.24418-1-s.nawrocki@samsung.com>
 <CA+Ln22Hfys7r2EDstOsdks1X88Fuv77DLTuXLWDynTt4kmiCiQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
In-Reply-To: <CA+Ln22Hfys7r2EDstOsdks1X88Fuv77DLTuXLWDynTt4kmiCiQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 02:59:07PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi Sylwester,
> 
> 2020年8月11日(火) 13:25 Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>:
> >
> > In the .set_rate callback for some PLLs there is a loop polling state
> > of the PLL lock bit and it may become an endless loop when something
> > goes wrong with the PLL. For some PLLs there is already (a duplicated)
> > code for polling with timeout. This patch replaces that code with
> > the readl_relaxed_poll_timeout_atomic() macro and moves it to a common
> > helper function, which is then used for all the PLLs. The downside
> > of switching to the common macro is that we drop the cpu_relax() call.
> 
> Tbh. I'm not sure what effect was exactly expected from cpu_relax() in
> the functions which already had timeout handling. Could someone shed
> some light on this?

For us, it should not matter much, except:
1. when on A9 with ARM_ERRATA_754327, but we do not enable it on our
   platforms,
2. it is a generic pattern for busy loops.

On other architectures it could mean something (e.g. yield to other
hyper-threading CPU).

Looks good.

Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>

Best regards,
Krzysztof