[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200518105130.GC8699@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 11:51:30 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>
Cc: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Georgy Vlasov <Georgy.Vlasov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
Ramil Zaripov <Ramil.Zaripov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
Gareth Williams <gareth.williams.jx@...esas.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Wan Ahmad Zainie <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"wuxu.wu" <wuxu.wu@...wei.com>, Clement Leger <cleger@...ray.eu>,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/19] spi: dw: Add Tx/Rx finish wait methods to the
MID DMA
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:02:50PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 01:41:31PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I guess we could, though it's really there because for historical
> > reasons we've got a bunch of different ways of specifying delays from
> > client drivers rather than for the executing a delay where you've
> > already got a good idea of the length of the delay.
> A beauty of spi_delay_exec() is that it provides a selective delay. I mean it
> checks the delay value and selects an appropriate delay method like ndelay,
> udelay and so on. That's the only reason I'd use it here. But It has got a few
> drawbacks:
Right, usually you'd have a good ideal how long the delay is and
therefore just be able to go directly for an appropraite delay function.
> - timeout value has type u16. It's too small to keep nanoseconds.
That could be increased, though obviously if you have a bigger delay you
can specify it in usecs instead.
> - semantically the xfer argument isn't optional and we can't fetch it that easy
> in the dmaengine completion callbacks.
Not sure I follow this.
> So if there were an alternative method like _spi_transfer_delay_ns() I'd use it.
> Otherwise we'd need to locally implement the selective delay. Unless you know
> another alternative, which does it. If you don't and there isn't one then in
> order to not over-complicate a simple delay-loop code I'd simply leave the
> ndelay() here.
Not that I'm aware of.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists