Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 13/21] clk: tegra210: Use fence_udelay during PLLU init | From | Sowjanya Komatineni <> | Date | Sun, 11 Aug 2019 12:16:49 -0700 |
| |
On 8/11/19 11:02 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 09.08.2019 2:46, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет: >> This patch uses fence_udelay rather than udelay during PLLU >> initialization to ensure writes to clock registers happens before >> waiting for specified delay. >> >> Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com> >> Signed-off-by: Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@nvidia.com> >> --- >> drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c | 8 ++++---- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c >> index 4721ee030d1c..998bf60b219a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c >> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c >> @@ -2841,7 +2841,7 @@ static int tegra210_enable_pllu(void) >> reg = readl_relaxed(clk_base + pllu.params->ext_misc_reg[0]); >> reg &= ~BIT(pllu.params->iddq_bit_idx); >> writel_relaxed(reg, clk_base + pllu.params->ext_misc_reg[0]); >> - udelay(5); >> + fence_udelay(5, clk_base); >> >> reg = readl_relaxed(clk_base + PLLU_BASE); >> reg &= ~GENMASK(20, 0); >> @@ -2849,7 +2849,7 @@ static int tegra210_enable_pllu(void) >> reg |= fentry->n << 8; >> reg |= fentry->p << 16; >> writel(reg, clk_base + PLLU_BASE); >> - udelay(1); >> + fence_udelay(1, clk_base); >> reg |= PLL_ENABLE; >> writel(reg, clk_base + PLLU_BASE); >> >> @@ -2895,12 +2895,12 @@ static int tegra210_init_pllu(void) >> reg = readl_relaxed(clk_base + XUSB_PLL_CFG0); >> reg &= ~XUSB_PLL_CFG0_PLLU_LOCK_DLY_MASK; >> writel_relaxed(reg, clk_base + XUSB_PLL_CFG0); >> - udelay(1); >> + fence_udelay(1, clk_base); >> >> reg = readl_relaxed(clk_base + PLLU_HW_PWRDN_CFG0); >> reg |= PLLU_HW_PWRDN_CFG0_SEQ_ENABLE; >> writel_relaxed(reg, clk_base + PLLU_HW_PWRDN_CFG0); >> - udelay(1); >> + fence_udelay(1, clk_base); >> >> reg = readl_relaxed(clk_base + PLLU_BASE); >> reg &= ~PLLU_BASE_CLKENABLE_USB; >> > The clk_base corresponds to the RESET controller's part of Clock-and-Reset hardware, is it > okay to read-back the RST register and not the clock for the fencing? Yes as both reset and clocks are all in same CAR
| |