Re: [PATCHv3 4/5] mtd: mxc_nand fixups

[John Ogness]

On 2010-06-23, Ivo Clarysse <ivo.clarysse@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But is it OK to use a regular (non-volatile) variable to communicate
> between interrupt context and the non-interrupt context ?

In this case, yes.

> My original patch for i.MX21 used completions instead:
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2010-April/012694.html

Ah. It seems you've been through all this before. I wish I had noticed
that thread before. I will need to check more carefully in the future.

Yes, your original patch achieves the exact same thing. Whether we use
wait_event() with a flag or wait_completion() really is the same
thing. So I guess Sascha can decide what we should do there.

What I like about your original patch is that only the i.MX21 has the
cost of constantly enabling/disabling the irq line. It adds 5
cpu_is_mx21() blocks to the code, but will lead to less work for the CPU
on non-i.MX21 boards.

John Ogness
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/