Hi, On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 05:24:09PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > On 11/06/2016 at 00:30:36 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote :
> > Does this have to be called that early? It seems wasteful to always > > call udelay() here, when these are functions that are normally > > allowed to sleep. > So I've tested it and something like that would work: > > if (system_state < SYSTEM_RUNNING) > udelay(osc->startup_usec); > else > usleep_range(osc->startup_usec, osc->startup_usec + 1); > > But I'm afraid it would be the first driver to actually do something > like that (however, it is already the only driver trying to sleep). tglx has suggested to modify clock core to handle a somewhat similar kind of scenario (probably should work here too) and avoid driver changes, http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.11.1606061448010.28031@nanos Regards afzal