From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> To: Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com> Cc: <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix device teardown Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:00:08 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <8738qsplo7.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CA+BoTQktaDtp=fc3C_u4geA6vK72B1X4QnsD_GqrzU9NXEmBrA@mail.gmail.com> (Michal Kazior's message of "Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:51:28 +0200") Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com> writes: > On 2 August 2013 09:41, Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote: >> Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com> writes: >> >>> @@ -1742,6 +1761,12 @@ static int ath10k_pci_hif_power_up(struct ath10k *ar) >>> { >>> int ret; >>> >>> + ret = ath10k_pci_start_intr(ar); >>> + if (ret) { >>> + ath10k_err("could not start interrupt handling (%d)\n", ret); >>> + goto err; >>> + } >> >> So now we call start_intr() during power_up(), which means that we do >> the request_irq() calls during every interface up event. Does that cause >> any meaningful overhead? > > I don't think so. Good. >> For me it looks better to do all resource allocation in >> ath10k_pci_probe(), like request_irq(), and free the resources in >> ath10k_pci_remove(). But then we would need to immeadiately call >> disable_irq() and then enable_irq() from power_up() so I'm not sure if >> that's any better. > > Not only that. Since disable/enable_irq must be balanced we'd need > some way to track whether we have irqs enabled/disabled - either with > an extra bool variable, additional ath10k_states or new pci-specific > states. > > The patch assumes disable_irq is followed by free_irq (which it is) > and possibly request_irq later on. Yeah, your v2 sounds much better. And if there's overhead or something else we can always change this later. I'll wait for comments from others and if I don't get any, I'll apply this. -- Kalle Valo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> To: Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix device teardown Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:00:08 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <8738qsplo7.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CA+BoTQktaDtp=fc3C_u4geA6vK72B1X4QnsD_GqrzU9NXEmBrA@mail.gmail.com> (Michal Kazior's message of "Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:51:28 +0200") Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com> writes: > On 2 August 2013 09:41, Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote: >> Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com> writes: >> >>> @@ -1742,6 +1761,12 @@ static int ath10k_pci_hif_power_up(struct ath10k *ar) >>> { >>> int ret; >>> >>> + ret = ath10k_pci_start_intr(ar); >>> + if (ret) { >>> + ath10k_err("could not start interrupt handling (%d)\n", ret); >>> + goto err; >>> + } >> >> So now we call start_intr() during power_up(), which means that we do >> the request_irq() calls during every interface up event. Does that cause >> any meaningful overhead? > > I don't think so. Good. >> For me it looks better to do all resource allocation in >> ath10k_pci_probe(), like request_irq(), and free the resources in >> ath10k_pci_remove(). But then we would need to immeadiately call >> disable_irq() and then enable_irq() from power_up() so I'm not sure if >> that's any better. > > Not only that. Since disable/enable_irq must be balanced we'd need > some way to track whether we have irqs enabled/disabled - either with > an extra bool variable, additional ath10k_states or new pci-specific > states. > > The patch assumes disable_irq is followed by free_irq (which it is) > and possibly request_irq later on. Yeah, your v2 sounds much better. And if there's overhead or something else we can always change this later. I'll wait for comments from others and if I don't get any, I'll apply this. -- Kalle Valo _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-02 8:00 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2013-07-18 6:39 [PATCH] ath10k: move irq setup Michal Kazior 2013-07-18 6:39 ` Michal Kazior 2013-07-30 18:35 ` Kalle Valo 2013-07-30 18:35 ` Kalle Valo 2013-07-31 5:50 ` Michal Kazior 2013-07-31 5:50 ` Michal Kazior 2013-07-31 10:50 ` Michal Kazior 2013-07-31 10:50 ` Michal Kazior 2013-08-02 7:15 ` [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix device teardown Michal Kazior 2013-08-02 7:15 ` Michal Kazior 2013-08-02 7:41 ` Kalle Valo 2013-08-02 7:41 ` Kalle Valo 2013-08-02 7:51 ` Michal Kazior 2013-08-02 7:51 ` Michal Kazior 2013-08-02 8:00 ` Kalle Valo [this message] 2013-08-02 8:00 ` Kalle Valo 2013-08-05 16:23 ` Kalle Valo 2013-08-05 16:23 ` Kalle Valo
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=8738qsplo7.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com \ --to=kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com \ --cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=michal.kazior@tieto.com \ /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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.