On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:35:17 +0530 Afzal Mohammed <afzal.mohd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 Oh, interesting. Definitely a better solution than this custom check. -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
