[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87muqwzyya.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 14:04:13 +0100
From: Peter Korsgaard <peter@...sgaard.com>
To: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...n.ch>
Cc: Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@...site.dk>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] i2c:ocores: add polling interface
>>>>> "Federico" == Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...n.ch> writes:
Hi,
>> >> Where does this 10 come from?
>> >
>> > It's true, it's just a random number. It can be zero as well, and we ask
>> > the system to just sleep for that amount of time.
>> >
>> > (1) usleep_range(sleep_min, sleep_min);
>>
>> Or just usleep(sleep_min);
> This does not exist as far as I know; the alternative is an active wait with
> udelay. But then, it is not that different from just start polling TIP or BUSY
> flags.
Ahh yes.
> I think that something like this could be better
> (2) usleep_range(sleep_min, sleep_min * XXX);
> But.
> Since it is better to make this patch ready for xfer_irqless, then I will
> definitively go for udelay(). The reason is that, xfer_irqless may run in
> atomic context where we can't sleep at all.
Great! BTW I noticed that your sleep_min calculation looked odd:
int sleep_min = (8/i2c->bus_clock_khz) * 1000; /* us for 8bits
bus_clock_khz almost certainly will be bigger than 8 (E.G. likely
100KHz), so the above set sleep_min to 0. Please move the * 1000 before
the division.
--
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists