[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <q2yed82fe3e1004200859k742149cajead11323745ab768@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:59:57 -0500
From: Timur Tabi <timur.tabi@...il.com>
To: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Andy Fleming <afleming@...escale.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gianfar: Wait for both RX and TX to stop
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Timur Tabi <timur.tabi@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
>> spin_event_timeout doesn't make sense for this. The patch is fine.
>
> Can you please elaborate on that? I don't understand why you think
> that. spin_event_timeout() takes an expression and a timeout, and
> loops over the expression calling cpu_relax(), just like this loop
> does.
I haven't tested it, but I think this should work:
spin_event_timeout((gfar_read(®s->ievent) &
(IEVENT_GRSC | IEVENT_GTSC)) ==
(IEVENT_GRSC | IEVENT_GTSC), -1, 0);
Ideally, Andy should use a timeout value other than -1, and then test
the result like this:
u32 ret;
ret = spin_event_timeout((gfar_read(®s->ievent) &
(IEVENT_GRSC | IEVENT_GTSC)) ==
(IEVENT_GRSC | IEVENT_GTSC), 1000, 0);
if (!ret)
/* timeout has occurred */
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists