[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27e70746-ffdf-40fa-a335-bc6e59e7266f@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 14:50:56 +0100
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Thierry Reding
<thierry.reding@...il.com>, Paritosh Dixit <paritoshd@...dia.com>
Cc: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Bhadram Varka <vbhadram@...dia.com>,
Revanth Kumar Uppala <ruppala@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: stmmac: dwmac-tegra: Fix link bring-up sequence
On 01/10/2024 09:43, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 9/27/24 17:28, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> On 25/09/2024 14:40, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> All in all, I wonder if we wouldn't be better off increasing these
>>> delays to the point where we can use usleep_range(). That will make
>>> the overall lane bringup slightly longer (though it should still be well
>>> below 1ms, so hardly noticeable from a user's perspective) but has the
>>> benefit of not blocking the CPU during this time.
>>
>> Yes we can certainly increase the delay and use usleep_range() as you
>> prefer. Let us know what you would recommend here.
>
> Use of usleep_range() would be definitely preferrable.
Thanks for the feedback.
Thierry, let us know whether we should keep the 50/500ns ndelay() or
switch to 10-20us usleep_range() as per the kernel documentation for
less than 10us it says the typical guidance is to use udelay.
> Additionally, please replace c99 comments '// ...' with ansi ones:
> '/* ... */'
Paritosh, please make the above change for the comment style.
Thanks
Jon
--
nvpublic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists