[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150716205522.GC1602@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 21:55:22 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Nariman Poushin <nariman@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, airlied@...ux.ie,
dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, sameo@...ux.intel.com,
lee.jones@...aro.org, tony@...mide.com, lgirdwood@...il.com,
brian.austin@...rus.com, Paul.Handrigan@...rus.com,
support.opensource@...semi.com, bardliao@...ltek.com,
oder_chiou@...ltek.com, laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com,
lars@...afoo.de, dmurphy@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, peter.ujfalusi@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 V5] regmap: Apply optional delay in
multi_reg_write/register_patch
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 04:36:22PM +0100, Nariman Poushin wrote:
> +
> + if (regs[i].delay_us)
> + udelay(regs[i].delay_us);
This is a bit funky. While Takashi is correct that we could be running
in a spinlock equally this will mean that we could end up with some
really long busy waits. It feels like we should at least make an effort
to complain about that, print a warning or something.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists