[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAVeFuKcteLaNp6C3EuSmGxpb_8aGYXw4FYjFqXXH2St5mbZDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:10:19 +0900
From: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
To: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@...el.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...el.com>,
Laurentiu Palcu <laurentiu.palcu@...el.com>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] gpiolib: add irq_not_threaded flag to gpio_chip
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Octavian Purdila
<octavian.purdila@...el.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Octavian Purdila
>> <octavian.purdila@...el.com> wrote:
>> > Some GPIO chips (e.g. the DLN2 USB adapter) have blocking get/set
>> > operation but do not need a threaded irq handler.
>>
>> Sorry if you already explained this (I have been a little bit late
>> with the GPIO reviews recently), but does this optimization bring a
>> significant benefit that justifies adding another field in struct
>> gpio_chip? If so it would be nice to have it in the commit message. If
>> not, do we need this at all?
>
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> In the case DLN2 USB GPIO adapter the GPIO interrupt is generated in
> the completion routine of a receive URB, which means that we are in
> interrupt context. If a threaded irq is used, we would have to
> schedule work instead of running to interrupt handler directly which
> is unnecessary and adds latency.
>
> BTW, AFAIC Linus W already merged this patch in his next tree, I am
> keeping it in this series because it was not pulled in the mfd-next
> tree.
You're right, it's all good then. Thanks for the explanation.
--
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