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;
IronPort-SDR: abQ4RE8/u+Zytxkr41f9hWK/Xvd/gr3MqVLphKQ6QnVs5WinG6JsXyYXgjntNsxUTYoowSO529
 xKkmlt/r3Wiw==
IronPort-SDR: 0a/5dAA42owuPF8WikIMxMCIWJMVuHbslnMTJG6pKrT6c2RCnKBuzjpyFklNVJBSFT4+/0WEWH
 NCdqf9vu51Dg==
Date:   Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:49:33 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     "Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad Zainie" 
        <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@intel.com>
Cc:     "kishon@ti.com" <kishon@ti.com>,
        "vkoul@kernel.org" <vkoul@kernel.org>,
        "robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mgross@linux.intel.com" <mgross@linux.intel.com>,
        "Raja Subramanian, Lakshmi Bai" 
        <lakshmi.bai.raja.subramanian@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] phy: intel: Add Keem Bay USB PHY support
Message-ID: <20201111094933.GG4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20201109031654.22443-1-wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@intel.com>
 <20201109031654.22443-3-wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@intel.com>
 <20201109114102.GY4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <DM6PR11MB3721899F79D7A75BBEE85C5FDDE80@DM6PR11MB3721.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR11MB3721899F79D7A75BBEE85C5FDDE80@DM6PR11MB3721.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 09:28:34AM +0000, Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad Zainie wrote:
> > From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 7:41 PM
> > To: Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad Zainie
> > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 11:16:54AM +0800, Wan Ahmad Zainie wrote:

...

> > > +	usleep_range(30, 50);
> > 
> > Why 30-50?
> 
> I take this value from boot firmware.
> There is a delay of 30us after clearing IDDQ_enable bit.
> I believe the purpose is to ensure all analog blocks are powered up.

Then put it into comment.

...

> > > +	usleep_range(20, 50);
> > 
> > Why these numbers?
> 
> In Keem Bay data book, under USB initialization section,
> there is step that there must be a minimum 20us wait
> after clock enable, before bringing PHYs out of reset.
> 
> 50 is the value that I picked randomly. Is usleep_range(20, 20)
> Better?

No, the better as I told you already few times is to comment "why?" these
numbers. Above can be like:
"According to datasheet this step requires 20us wait..."

...

> > > +	usleep_range(2, 10);
> > 
> > Ditto.
> 
> Under the same section above, there is a step for 2us wait.
> I believe it is for register write to go through.

Ditto.

> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > +	usleep_range(20, 50);
> > 
> > Ditto.
> 
> Under the same section above, there is a step to wait 20us
> after setting SRAM load bit, before release the controller
> reset.
> 
> I will add comment for those 4 delay above.

Yes, please.

...

> Before I proceed with v3, I would like to know if I should
> use udelay(), instead of usleep_range()?
> I refer to https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt.

You should know your code better than me. That howto is clear about when of
which API calls can be used.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko