lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 5/5] clk: pxa: transfer CPU clock setting from pxa2xx-cpufreq
On 11/02, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> writes:
>
> > On 10/23, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/pxa/clk-pxa.c b/drivers/clk/pxa/clk-pxa.c
> >> index 29cee9e8d4d9..7184819b7415 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/clk/pxa/clk-pxa.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/clk/pxa/clk-pxa.c
> >> +void pxa2xx_core_turbo_switch(bool on)
> >> +{
> >> + unsigned long flags;
> >> + unsigned int unused, clkcfg;
> >> +
> >> + local_irq_save(flags);
> >> +
> >> + asm("mrc\tp14, 0, %0, c6, c0, 0" : "=r" (clkcfg));
> >
> > \t is odd style, but I guess this is copied from somewhere?
> Yeah ... and yes, that \t is indeed ugly now I look at it. A space could be more
> welcome ...
>
> > Should it be volatile? Or is it ok for the clkcfg value to be
> > cached here?
>
> I don't see how it could be cached ... The asm statement produces a result used
> afterwards, I don't think the compiler can optimize that out. I would have
> understood if this was in a loop, but here I don't see.
>
> Note that I'm not reluctant to add it, I just want to check which optimization
> case we're talking about to see if I'm missing something.
>

I'm a bit rusty on asm volatile semantics but I seem to recall
that a non-volatile asm statement can be combined/merged,
reordered, etc. by the compiler. I suppose if this was in the
cpufreq driver already then changing it in this patch is not a
good idea. If anything, a follow up patch if we determine it's
actually a bug.

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-02 23:27    [W:0.054 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site