[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHcu+VarBz3m_zKfDB0osQsjZ0dMpvUk+q2Qt-yC5DbPjr0bRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 11:01:29 -0600
From: Daniel Campello <campello@...omium.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iio: sx9310: Prefer async probe
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 9:43 AM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Douglas Anderson (2020-09-01 08:19:43)
> > On one board I found that:
> > probe of 5-0028 returned 1 after 259547 usecs
> >
> > While some of this time is attributable to the pile of i2c transfers
> > that we do at probe time, the lion's share (over 200 ms) is sitting
> > waiting in the polling loop in sx9310_init_compensation() waiting for
> > the hardware to indicate that it's done.
> >
> > There's no reason to block probe of all other devices on our probe.
> > Turn on async probe.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> > ---
>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Campello <campello@...omium.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists