From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C73C43331 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:18:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43AB20719 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:18:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="cb8aQenQ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727943AbgCZUS2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:18:28 -0400 Received: from lelv0142.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.249]:52352 "EHLO lelv0142.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727879AbgCZUS1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:18:27 -0400 Received: from lelv0265.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.224]) by lelv0142.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 02QKILlB035158; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:18:21 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1585253901; bh=acOH02zgrD/iIEWGjM+u8IbzyboIFHTfr8eulz18fTU=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=cb8aQenQF02vYBMSxaBaUe9B0YiviWLZtYdoBU8ddLTkhjiypDNsaonduB+5JI86i oqHCySREE6ossz0gpkszNpmLlw4lPLVjOfeApVl5/hL6OBv7+73Veo4aMHILJbAEv+ xnZ3CUZkQamz6p/4xoyYxRQOd+62/O11krF6kE0c= Received: from DLEE100.ent.ti.com (dlee100.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.30]) by lelv0265.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 02QKILW6013512 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:18:21 -0500 Received: from DLEE113.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.24) by DLEE100.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1847.3; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:18:21 -0500 Received: from lelv0326.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.84) by DLEE113.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1847.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:18:21 -0500 Received: from [10.250.100.73] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0326.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 02QKIII6080272; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:18:19 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 03/11] net: ethernet: ti: cpts: move tc mult update in cpts_fifo_read() To: Richard Cochran CC: "David S . Miller" , Lokesh Vutla , Tony Lindgren , Sekhar Nori , Murali Karicheri , netdev , , References: <20200320194244.4703-1-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> <20200320194244.4703-4-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> <20200326142049.GD20841@localhost> From: Grygorii Strashko Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 22:18:18 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200326142049.GD20841@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On 26/03/2020 16:20, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 09:42:36PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >> Now CPTS driver .adjfreq() generates request to read CPTS current time >> (CPTS_EV_PUSH) with intention to process all pending event using previous >> frequency adjustment values before switching to the new ones. So >> CPTS_EV_PUSH works as a marker to switch to the new frequency adjustment >> values. Current code assumes that all job is done in .adjfreq(), but after >> enabling IRQ this will not be true any more. >> >> Hence save new frequency adjustment values (mult) and perform actual freq >> adjustment in cpts_fifo_read() immediately after CPTS_EV_PUSH is received. > > Now THIS comment is much better! The explanation here really should > be in the previous patch, to help poor reviewers like me. I've been thinking to squash them. What's your opinion. Thank you. -- Best regards, grygorii