Hi Shawn, On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Shawn Guo <shawn...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:45:20AM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 02:49:23PM -0800, Stefan Agner wrote: >> > If a clock gets enabled early during boot time, it can lead to a PLL >> > startup. The wait_lock function makes sure that the PLL is really >> > stareted up before it gets used. However, the function sleeps which >> > leads to scheduling and an error: >> > bad: scheduling from the idle thread! >> > ... >> > >> > Use udelay in case IRQ's are still disabled. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <ste...@agner.ch> >> > --- >> > drivers/clk/imx/clk-pllv3.c | 5 ++++- >> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-pllv3.c b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-pllv3.c >> > index c05c43d..b5ff561 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-pllv3.c >> > +++ b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-pllv3.c >> > @@ -63,7 +63,10 @@ static int clk_pllv3_wait_lock(struct clk_pllv3 *pll) >> > break; >> > if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) >> > break; >> > - usleep_range(50, 500); >> > + if (unlikely(irqs_disabled())) >> >> This causes a bit confusion that clk_pllv3_prepare is sleepable. >> But this line indicates it's possible to be called in irq context. >> Although it's only happened during kernel boot phase where irq is >> still not enabled. >> It seems schedule_debug() somehow did not catch it during early boot >> phase. Maybe schedule guys can help explain. >> >> My question is if it's really worthy to introduce this confusion >> to fix the issue since the delay is minor? > > I do not understand why it's confusing. The code already obviously > indicates this is a special handling for cases where irq is still not > enabled, rather than for irq context. >
The code itself has nothing telling it's a special handling for the case where irq is still not enabled. Even it tells, it may still cause confusing by adding complexity in clk_pllv3_prepare() which actually should be called in non-atomic context as it could sleep. > The patch is to fix the "bad: scheduling from the idle thread!" warning > rather than minimize the delay. Do you have an opinion on how to fix > the warning? > I just wonder maybe we could simply just using udelay(50) instead of usleep_range(50, 500) to eliminate the confusing since it's minor cast. What do you think of it? >> Furthermore, shouldn't it be udelay(500)? > > 500 is for the worst case of sleep, and 50 is good enough for delay. > Yes, you''re right. We have a loop, so 50ns one time should be good. > Shawn Regards Dong Aisheng