[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091118175202.490989d8@hyperion.delvare>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:52:02 +0100
From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To: Leon Woestenberg <leon.woestenberg@...il.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sven@...bigcorporation.com>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
"Ben Dooks (embedded platforms)" <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: yield() in i2c non-happy paths hits BUG under -rt patch
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:28:53 +0100, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > Our timers are very efficient and some day we will need to make jiffies a
> > function and stop the timer ticking for best performance. At that point
> > timers are probably the most efficient way to do much of this.
>
> The problem with I2C bitbanged is the stringent timing, we need a way
> to have fine-grained sleeping
> mixed with real-time tasks in order to make this work.
FWIW, the problem that was initially reported has nothing to do with
this. i2c-algo-bit used mdelay() during transactions, not yield().
yield() is used only in once place, _between_ transactions attempts.
There are no strict timing constraints there.
--
Jean Delvare
--
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