From: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr>
To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>,
Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: MSM <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] phy: qcom-qmp: Raise qcom_qmp_phy_enable() polling delay
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:55:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <967571b1-358f-09c3-dee6-0e664ab3c3d3@free.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e9d7667d-7ed4-d97e-b010-d61b214e6451@ti.com>
On 20/06/2019 08:25, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> On 14/06/19 6:08 PM, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> The issue is usleep_range() being misused ^_^
>>
>> Although usleep_range() takes unsigned longs as parameters, it is
>> not appropriate over the entire 0-2^64 range.
>>
>> a) It should not be used with tiny values, because the cost of programming
>> the timer interrupt, and processing the resulting IRQ would dominate.
>>
>> b) It should not be used with large values (above 2000000/HZ) because
>> msleep() is more efficient, and is acceptable for these ranges.
>
> Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt has all the information on the various
> kernel delay/sleep mechanisms. For < ~10us, it recommends to use udelay
> (readx_poll_timeout_atomic). Depending on the actual timeout to be used, the
> delay mechanism in timers-howto.txt should be used.
Hello Kishon,
I believe the proposed patch does the right thing:
a) polling for the ready bit is not done in atomic context,
therefore we don't need to busy-loop
b) since we're ultimately calling usleep_range(), we should
pass an appropriate parameter, such as max_us = 10
(instead of max_us = 1, which is outside usleep_range spec)
Maybe it would help if someone reviewed this patch.
Regards.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-24 11:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-13 11:32 [PATCH v1] phy: qcom-qmp: Raise qcom_qmp_phy_enable() polling delay Marc Gonzalez
2019-06-14 9:50 ` Vivek Gautam
2019-06-14 12:38 ` Marc Gonzalez
2019-06-20 6:25 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2019-06-24 11:55 ` Marc Gonzalez [this message]
2019-06-24 15:52 ` Doug Anderson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=967571b1-358f-09c3-dee6-0e664ab3c3d3@free.fr \
--to=marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=kishon@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).