[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611091605090.3501@nanos>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 16:06:29 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...el.com>,
Slawomir Stepien <sst@...zta.fm>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/8] iio: envelope-detector: ADC driver based on a
DAC and a comparator
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2016-11-08 22:47, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I don't think you need extra race handling with that, but I might be wrong
> > as usual.
>
> There's obviously no way to determine which of the timeout or the
> interrupt that happens first without some race handling, so I don't
> know what you mean? If the timeout happens first, there is also a
> need to handle late hits from the irq that might come in during the
> preparation for the next step in the binary search. It gets messy
> quickly compared to the simplicity of the current implementation.
Gah, forgot about that timeout thingy. Fair enough.
Feel free to add an
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists