Re: [PATCH 22/71] ncr5380: Eliminate selecting state

[Finn Thain]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> This still heavily depends on the processing time spent in 
> NCR5380_read(). You should never use a value derived from 
> loops_per_jiffy for a non-empty loop,

Sure but the time-out condition isn't supposed to be precise.
Plus/minus a jiffy is no problem. Plus/minus a second is no good.

> as it may take much longer. Always compare with an maximum end time 
> instead.

That can't work with interrupts disabled, which was the problem I was 
trying to solve by use of loops_per_jiffy.

NCR5380_poll_politely() in mainline doesn't work with interrupts disabled 
either, hence patch 21.

> 
> E.g.:
> 
>         end = jiffies + 2;        /* 1 jiffie + 1 safeguard */
>         do {
>                  if ((NCR5380_read(reg1) & bit1) == val1)
>                          return 0;
>                  cpu_relax();
>         } while (time_before(jiffies, end);
> 
> And a similar loop for "Busy-wait for up to 20 ms".

Interrupts may be disabled during that loop also. Please refer to (and/or 
respond to) patch 21, "ncr5380: Sleep when polling, if possible", in which 
these changes were made.

-- 

> 
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
> 
--
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/