[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110105172501.GB2112@gallagher>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 17:25:01 +0000
From: Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>, gerg@...pgear.com,
B32542@...escale.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
s.hauer@...gutronix.de, baruch@...s.co.il, w.sang@...gutronix.de,
r64343@...escale.com, eric@...rea.com, bryan.wu@...onical.com,
davem@...emloft.net, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
lw@...o-electronics.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] ARM: mxs: add ocotp read function
On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 05:44:09PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Jamie,
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 04:16:46PM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 10:07:35PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > + /* check both BUSY and ERROR cleared */
> > > + while ((__raw_readl(ocotp_base) &
> > > + (BM_OCOTP_CTRL_BUSY | BM_OCOTP_CTRL_ERROR)) && --timeout)
> > > + /* nothing */;
> >
> > Is it worth using cpu_relax() in these polling loops?
> I don't know what cpu_relax does for other platforms, but on ARM it's
> just a memory barrier which AFAICT doesn't help here at all (which
> doesn't need to be correct). Why do you think it would be better?
Well I don't see that there's anything broken without cpu_relax() but
using cpu_relax() seems to be the most common way of doing busy polling
loops that I've seen. It's also a bit easier to read than a comment and
semi-colon. Perhaps it's just personal preference.
Jamie
--
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