[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D0F0497.7090306@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:24:07 +0100
From: Michael Lawnick <ml.lawnick@....de>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
CC: Ben Dooks <ben-i2c@...ff.org>,
Linux I2C <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matthias Zacharias <Matthias.Zacharias@...-solutions.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] i2c-algo-bit: Disable interrupts while SCL is high
Jean Delvare said the following:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:09:54 +0100, Michael Lawnick wrote:
>> Sorry to disturb, but
>> <MANTRA>
>> Disabling interrupts may be done only for a few instructions.</MANTRA>
>>
>> Even 1 us is an eternity on modern systems.
>
> Don't be sorry, this is exactly the kind of input I was asking for. I'm
> a little surprised, I thought disabling interrupts for a couple
> microseconds was happening all the time, but I'll trust your
> experience.
I can't tell whether this is happening all the time, but I can imagine
and I highly discourage this. This is IMHO one of the lessons many LINUX
developers have still to learn. Maybe it's a history reason.
> Given your point and Ben's, it seems clear that my patch is
> not acceptable as is, and at the very least I should make the spinlock
> usage optional.
At last you might not come around your solution, but a H/W-S/W
combination driving you in such a direction should be considered broken.
Using it in professional environment needs heavy discussions about pros
and cons, best would be to beat the H/W designers to provide a real
controller.
Of course it may be used in a case, where you simply need a (temporary)
hack to get something working.
--
KR
Michael
--
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