[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200902061422.32689.jpihet@mvista.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:22:32 +0100
From: Jean Pihet <jpihet@...sta.com>
To: Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: tony@...mide.com, ext-adrian.hunter@...ia.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, jarkko.lavinen@...ia.com,
drzeus-mmc@...eus.cx, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP: MMC: recover from transfer failures - Resend
On Thursday 05 February 2009 21:32:03 Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:05:58 +0100
> >
> > Jean Pihet <jpihet@...sta.com> wrote:
> > > + while (OMAP_HSMMC_READ(host->base,
> > > + SYSCTL) & SRD)
> > > + ;
> >
> > Is a __raw_readl() sufficient to prevent the cpu from burning up here,
> > or should we add cpu_relax()?
>
> The __raw_readl() should be sufficient. The MMC controller is located on
> the L4 CORE interconnect, so the round trip latency for the read from MMC
> is at least 90 ns, while the CPU cycle time is only about 1 to 2 ns.
Ok.
>
> > An infinite loop which assumes the hardware is perfect is always a
> > worry. But I see the driver already does that, so we're no worse off..
Do you want a finite loop with udelay in it? I located 4 places were this
could be used. If so I can generate a new patch for that.
>
> - Paul
Regards,
Jean
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists