Hi Brian,

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 07:45:48PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:16:43PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > On 02/17/2015 02:07 PM, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> > > It will be Brian choice eventually, but if you say that you will submit that
> > > approach for next cycle, and yours for stable, and that for next you'll convert
> > > mdelay() to msleep(), I'll stop arguing.
> > 
> > How about you push a proper patchset with this alternative (and a nice
> > cover letter explaining the need for a threaded irq) so we can discuss
> > properly this new turn?
> 
> I think both Maxime's change (polling a new HW bit) and Robert J's
> change (move to a threaded IRQ) are good. I'll take another look, but I
> expect I'll take Maxime's v4 for the 4.0 cycle, and Robert J's v2 for
> 4.1 (or will we just jump straight to 5.0? I never know).

That's what I would expect too.

> Will I see a patch to convert to msleep() and/or a jiffies timeout
> in the near future?

As soon as both patches are merged.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com