[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <003201cb8a02$f05b15e0$66f8800a@maildom.okisemi.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:05:52 +0900
From: "Tomoya MORINAGA" <tomoya-linux@....okisemi.com>
To: "Marc Kleine-Budde" <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc: <andrew.chih.howe.khor@...el.com>,
"Masayuki Ohtake" <masa-korg@....okisemi.com>,
"Samuel Ortiz" <sameo@...ux.intel.com>, <margie.foster@...el.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de>, <yong.y.wang@...el.com>,
<kok.howg.ewe@...el.com>,
"Wolfgang Grandegger" <wg@...ndegger.com>, <joel.clark@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Christian Pellegrin" <chripell@...e.org>, <qi.wang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v3] can: Topcliff: PCH_CAN driver: Add Flow control,
On Friday, November 19, 2010 6:20 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote :
>>>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->msgif_reg_lock, flags);
>>>> + pch_can_rw_msg_obj(&priv->regs->ifregs[1].creq, tx_obj_no);
>>> Still we have the busy waiting in the TX path. Maybe you can move the
>>> waiting before accessing the if[1] and remove the busy waiting here.
>> I can't understand your saying.
>> For transmitting data, calling pch_can_rw_msg_obj is mandatory.
>Yes, but the busy wait is not needed. It should be enough to do the
>busy-waiting _before_ accessing the if[1].
Do you mean we should create other pch_can_rw_msg_obj which doesn't have busy wait ?
---
Thanks,
Tomoya MORINAGA
OKI SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD.
--
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