[PATCH 0/6] clk: meson: Delete a meaningless spinlock from the MPLL

Chuan Liu via B4 Relay posted 6 patches 2 weeks, 2 days ago
drivers/clk/meson/axg.c      |  6 ------
drivers/clk/meson/clk-mpll.c | 11 -----------
drivers/clk/meson/clk-mpll.h |  1 -
drivers/clk/meson/g12a.c     |  6 ------
drivers/clk/meson/gxbb.c     |  6 ------
drivers/clk/meson/meson8b.c  |  3 ---
drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.c   |  6 ------
7 files changed, 39 deletions(-)
[PATCH 0/6] clk: meson: Delete a meaningless spinlock from the MPLL
Posted by Chuan Liu via B4 Relay 2 weeks, 2 days ago
The existing locking mechanism of CCF can effectively avoid concurrent
register access. struct meson_clk_mpll_data has no meaning in defining
a spinlock repeatedly.

In addition, the register corresponding to MPLL does not share the same
register with other module drivers, so there is no concurrent access to
the register with other modules drivers.

Every driver file with mpll defines a spinlock with the same name (even
if defined as "static"), giving the illusion of repeated definitions?

Signed-off-by: Chuan Liu <chuan.liu@amlogic.com>
---
Chuan Liu (6):
      clk: meson: mpll: Delete a meaningless spinlock from the MPLL
      clk: meson: axg: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
      clk: meson: meson8b: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
      clk: meson: gxbb: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
      clk: meson: g12a: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
      clk: meson: s4: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL

 drivers/clk/meson/axg.c      |  6 ------
 drivers/clk/meson/clk-mpll.c | 11 -----------
 drivers/clk/meson/clk-mpll.h |  1 -
 drivers/clk/meson/g12a.c     |  6 ------
 drivers/clk/meson/gxbb.c     |  6 ------
 drivers/clk/meson/meson8b.c  |  3 ---
 drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.c   |  6 ------
 7 files changed, 39 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 0ef513560b53d499c824b77220c537eafe1df90d
change-id: 20240918-mpll_spinlock-4b9b55c44fd5

Best regards,
-- 
Chuan Liu <chuan.liu@amlogic.com>
Re: [PATCH 0/6] clk: meson: Delete a meaningless spinlock from the MPLL
Posted by Jerome Brunet 1 week, 5 days ago
On Fri 20 Sep 2024 at 16:16, Chuan Liu via B4 Relay <devnull+chuan.liu.amlogic.com@kernel.org> wrote:

> The existing locking mechanism of CCF can effectively avoid concurrent
> register access. struct meson_clk_mpll_data has no meaning in defining
> a spinlock repeatedly.
>
> In addition, the register corresponding to MPLL does not share the same
> register with other module drivers, so there is no concurrent access to
> the register with other modules drivers.
>
> Every driver file with mpll defines a spinlock with the same name (even
> if defined as "static"), giving the illusion of repeated definitions?
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuan Liu <chuan.liu@amlogic.com>

I'm ok with the patch in general but I have problem with the wording.
The lock is not meaningless. It has a meaning but it does not serve a
purpose, at least not anymore. You could write that it is useless, or
superfluous if you want to, but not meaningless.

Also, please squash the changes. 1 patch for this is fine.

> ---
> Chuan Liu (6):
>       clk: meson: mpll: Delete a meaningless spinlock from the MPLL
>       clk: meson: axg: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
>       clk: meson: meson8b: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
>       clk: meson: gxbb: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
>       clk: meson: g12a: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
>       clk: meson: s4: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
>
>  drivers/clk/meson/axg.c      |  6 ------
>  drivers/clk/meson/clk-mpll.c | 11 -----------
>  drivers/clk/meson/clk-mpll.h |  1 -
>  drivers/clk/meson/g12a.c     |  6 ------
>  drivers/clk/meson/gxbb.c     |  6 ------
>  drivers/clk/meson/meson8b.c  |  3 ---
>  drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.c   |  6 ------
>  7 files changed, 39 deletions(-)
> ---
> base-commit: 0ef513560b53d499c824b77220c537eafe1df90d
> change-id: 20240918-mpll_spinlock-4b9b55c44fd5
>
> Best regards,

-- 
Jerome
Re: [PATCH 0/6] clk: meson: Delete a meaningless spinlock from the MPLL
Posted by Chuan Liu 1 week, 5 days ago
hi Jerome:

         Thanks for your advice, I will modify the commit message and squash
the patch before sending it.


On 2024/9/24 16:35, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>
> On Fri 20 Sep 2024 at 16:16, Chuan Liu via B4 Relay <devnull+chuan.liu.amlogic.com@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> The existing locking mechanism of CCF can effectively avoid concurrent
>> register access. struct meson_clk_mpll_data has no meaning in defining
>> a spinlock repeatedly.
>>
>> In addition, the register corresponding to MPLL does not share the same
>> register with other module drivers, so there is no concurrent access to
>> the register with other modules drivers.
>>
>> Every driver file with mpll defines a spinlock with the same name (even
>> if defined as "static"), giving the illusion of repeated definitions?
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chuan Liu <chuan.liu@amlogic.com>
> I'm ok with the patch in general but I have problem with the wording.
> The lock is not meaningless. It has a meaning but it does not serve a
> purpose, at least not anymore. You could write that it is useless, or
> superfluous if you want to, but not meaningless.
>
> Also, please squash the changes. 1 patch for this is fine.
>
>> ---
>> Chuan Liu (6):
>>        clk: meson: mpll: Delete a meaningless spinlock from the MPLL
>>        clk: meson: axg: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
>>        clk: meson: meson8b: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
>>        clk: meson: gxbb: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
>>        clk: meson: g12a: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
>>        clk: meson: s4: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
>>
>>   drivers/clk/meson/axg.c      |  6 ------
>>   drivers/clk/meson/clk-mpll.c | 11 -----------
>>   drivers/clk/meson/clk-mpll.h |  1 -
>>   drivers/clk/meson/g12a.c     |  6 ------
>>   drivers/clk/meson/gxbb.c     |  6 ------
>>   drivers/clk/meson/meson8b.c  |  3 ---
>>   drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.c   |  6 ------
>>   7 files changed, 39 deletions(-)
>> ---
>> base-commit: 0ef513560b53d499c824b77220c537eafe1df90d
>> change-id: 20240918-mpll_spinlock-4b9b55c44fd5
>>
>> Best regards,
> --
> Jerome