[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c9727eaf22dc40f796793c6b127dfb9e@BL2PR03MB338.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 08:04:58 +0000
From: Yao Yuan <yao.yuan@...escale.com>
To: "fugang.duan@...escale.com" <fugang.duan@...escale.com>,
"wsa@...-dreams.de" <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
"marex@...x.de" <marex@...x.de>
CC: "LW@...O-electronics.de" <LW@...O-electronics.de>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"shawn.guo@...aro.org" <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"Frank.Li@...escale.com" <Frank.Li@...escale.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 1/2] i2c: imx: add DMA support for freescale i2c driver
Hi Fugang,
> >> >+ /* Waiting for Transfer complete. */
> >> >+ while (timeout--) {
> >> >+ temp = imx_i2c_read_reg(i2c_imx, IMX_I2C_I2SR);
> >> >+ if (temp & I2SR_ICF)
> >> >+ break;
> >> >+ udelay(10);
> >> >+ }
> >> Whether there have better method like interrupt to avoid dead wait
> >> here until timeout ?
> >
> >Can you give me more suggestion? We have discussed it with our team, It
> >seems the short query wait is necessary.
> >
> At least, you can use schdule_timeout() instead of udelay() ?
In fact, the waiting time normally is less than 10-50us, but the minimum time interval for schdule_timeout() is 1 jiffies.
So maybe schdule_timeout() is not very necessary?
Thanks for your review.
Best Regards,
Yuan Yao
--
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