Home » Mailing list archives » linux-kernel » 2010 » April » 8

Re: [PATCH 2/2] AT91 slow-clock resume: don't restore the PLL settings when the PLL was off

Previous thread: [PATCH 1/2] AT91 slow-clock suspend: don't wait when turning PLLs off by Anders Larsen on Wednesday, March 3, 2010 - 2:33 pm. (4 messages)

Next thread: epoll clarification sought: multithreaded epoll_wait for UDP sockets? by bert hubert on Wednesday, March 3, 2010 - 2:29 pm. (3 messages)
[view original message]
From: Anders Larsen
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] AT91 slow-clock resume: don't restore the PLL settings when the PLL was off
Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 - 2:33 pm

From: Julien Langer <julien.langer@gmail.com>

AT91: Don't try to restore the PLL settings on resume when the PLLs were turned
off before suspending.

We run into this problem with the PLLB on the at91: ohci-at91 disables the PLLB
when going to suspend. The slowclock code however tries to do the same: It
saves the PLLB register value and when restoring the value during resume it
waits for the PLLB to lock again. However the PLL will never lock and the loop
would run into its timeout because the slowclock code just stored and restored
an empty register.
Fix the problem by only restoring PLLA/PLLB when the registers were != 0.

Signed-off-by: Julien Langer <julien.langer@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>
Cc: Andrew Victor <avictor.za@gmail.com>
Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
---
 arch/arm/mach-at91/pm_slowclock.S |   14 ++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)

Index: b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm_slowclock.S
===================================================================
--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm_slowclock.S
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm_slowclock.S
@@ -171,17 +171,25 @@ ENTRY(at91_slow_clock)
 	ldr	r3, [r1, #(AT91_CKGR_PLLAR - AT91_PMC)]
 	str	r3, .saved_pllar
 
+	cmp r3, #0
+	beq 3f
+
 	mov	r3, #AT91_PMC_PLLCOUNT
 	orr	r3, r3, #(1 << 29)		/* bit 29 always set */
 	str	r3, [r1, #(AT91_CKGR_PLLAR - AT91_PMC)]
 
+3:
 	/* Save PLLB setting and disable it */
 	ldr	r3, [r1, #(AT91_CKGR_PLLBR - AT91_PMC)]
 	str	r3, .saved_pllbr
 
+	cmp r3, #0
+	beq 4f
+
 	mov	r3, #AT91_PMC_PLLCOUNT
 	str	r3, [r1, #(AT91_CKGR_PLLBR - AT91_PMC)]
 
+4:
 	/* Turn off the main oscillator */
 	ldr	r3, [r1, #(AT91_CKGR_MOR - AT91_PMC)]
 	bic	r3, r3, #AT91_PMC_MOSCEN
@@ -199,16 +207,22 @@ ENTRY(at91_slow_clock)
 
 	/* Restore PLLB setting */
 	ldr	r3, .saved_pllbr
+	cmp r3, #0
+	beq 5f
 	str	r3, [r1, #(AT91_CKGR_PLLBR - AT91_PMC)]
 
 	wait_pllblock
 
+5:
 	/* Restore PLLA setting */
 	ldr	r3, .saved_pllar
+	cmp r3, #0
+	beq 6f
 ...
[ message continues ]
[view original message]
From: Andrew Victor
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] AT91 slow-clock resume: don't restore the PLL settings when the PLL was off
Date: Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - 2:45 pm

I don't think it's sufficient skip the "wait for lock" if the
PLLA/PLLB value is 0.
For example, since bit 29 of PLLA is always 1, the wait_pllalock will
always run - even if MULA is 0 (which means the PLLA is disabled) and
will therefore never lock.
Similarly, for other bits in the register which might happen to be set.

The code should rather be something like:
  Save PLLA
  Save PLLB
  ... wait for interrupt ....
  Restore PLLB
  if (PLLB & AT91_PMC_MUL != 0)
      Wait for PLLB to lock
  Restore PLLA
  if (PLLA & AT91_PMC_MUL != 0)
      Wait for PLLA to lock


Regards,
  Andrew Victor
--


[ message continues ]
[view original message]
From: Anders Larsen
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] AT91 slow-clock resume: don't restore the PLL settings when the PLL was off
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010 - 3:56 am

Hi Andrew,


point taken.

The (more simple) patch below should match your suggestion
(added as #6043/1 to rmk's tracker):

at91: slow-clock resume: Don't wait for a disabled PLL to lock.

We run into this problem with the PLLB on the at91: ohci-at91 disables the PLLB
when going to suspend. The slowclock code however tries to do the same: It
saves the PLLB register value and when restoring the value during resume, it
waits for the PLLB to lock again. However the PLL will never lock and the loop
would run into its timeout because the slowclock code just stored and restored
an empty register.
This fixes the problem by only restoring PLLA/PLLB when they were enabled
at suspend time.

Signed-off-by: Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>
Cc: Andrew Victor <avictor.za@gmail.com>
Cc: Julien Langer <julien.langer@gmail.com>
---

 arch/arm/mach-at91/pm_slowclock.S |   12 ++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)


Index: b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm_slowclock.S
===================================================================
--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm_slowclock.S
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm_slowclock.S
@@ -201,13 +201,25 @@ ENTRY(at91_slow_clock)
 	ldr	r3, .saved_pllbr
 	str	r3, [r1, #(AT91_CKGR_PLLBR - AT91_PMC)]
 
+	tst	r3, #(AT91_PMC_MUL &  0xff0000)
+	bne	1f
+	tst	r3, #(AT91_PMC_MUL & ~0xff0000)
+	beq	2f
+1:
 	wait_pllblock
+2:
 
 	/* Restore PLLA setting */
 	ldr	r3, .saved_pllar
 	str	r3, [r1, #(AT91_CKGR_PLLAR - AT91_PMC)]
 
+	tst	r3, #(AT91_PMC_MUL &  0xff0000)
+	bne	3f
+	tst	r3, #(AT91_PMC_MUL & ~0xff0000)
+	beq	4f
+3:
 	wait_pllalock
+4:
 
 #ifdef SLOWDOWN_MASTER_CLOCK
 	/*

--


[ message continues ]
[view original message]
From: Andrew Victor
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] AT91 slow-clock resume: don't restore the PLL settings when the PLL was off
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 - 1:14 am

AT91_PMC_MUL is 11 bits (so 0x7ff0000)

Is the mask (0xff0000) correct in the above code?
It looks like wait_pllblock will be skipped if the MUL field is set to
0x100, 0x200, 0x300, etc.


Regards,
  Andrew Victor
--


[ message continues ]
[view original message]
From: Anders Larsen
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] AT91 slow-clock resume: don't restore the PLL settings when the PLL was off
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 - 1:46 am

Hi Andrew,


it's not possible to use that constant directly; there are too many bits
set (the ARM instruction set has room for an 8-bit constant and a shift

...so I made the test a two-step process; the first 'tst' checks if
the bits masked by (AT91_PMC_MUL & 0xff0000) = 0x00ff0000 are all zero,
the second 'tst' checks if the bits masked by
(AT91_PMC_MUL & ~0xff0000) = 0x07000000 are zero, so all 11 bits are
indeed tested.

There might well be an easier way to do this, but I didn't manage to
find it - the code isn't on a hot path anyway (it's executed _once_ upon
resume after suspend).

Cheers
Anders


--


[ message continues ]
Previous thread: [PATCH 1/2] AT91 slow-clock suspend: don't wait when turning PLLs off by Anders Larsen on Wednesday, March 3, 2010 - 2:33 pm. (4 messages)

Next thread: epoll clarification sought: multithreaded epoll_wait for UDP sockets? by bert hubert on Wednesday, March 3, 2010 - 2:29 pm. (3 messages)