[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1387062231.13062.43.camel@host5.omatika.ru>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 03:03:51 +0400
From: Sergei Ianovich <ynvich@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/16] misc: support for I-8024 in LP-8x4x
On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 21:59 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Have you checked that the nsleep definition actually does the
> right thing here? 450 nanoseconds must be close the latency
> you get from calling schedule_hrtimeout(). I'd suggest using
> either ndelay() or usleep_range() instead, depending on your
> needs.
Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt stated there was a significant
overhead when setting up usleep_range. I studied implementation and
found that schedule_hrtimeout was certainly less than 520000 CPU cycles
that udelay(1) would consume.
It worked. I haven't checked actual delay time. However, machines with
the driver (based on 3.8) are in production since May 2013 without
issues.
> If nsleep is really useful here, we should probably add that
> as a generic API rather than having it in one driver.
I've also used this nsleep for driving RTC clock (DS1302) since May
2013.
Now I see that my code is a clone of usleep_range(x, x). I will convert
my code to use it.
--
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