Re: [PATCH v2] dec: tulip: de4x5: Replace mdelay with usleep_range in de4x5_hw_init

[arvindY]

On Thursday 12 April 2018 07:00 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> On 2018/4/12 0:16, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 23:39 +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> > > de4x5_hw_init() is never called in atomic context.
> > >
> > > de4x5_hw_init() is only called by de4x5_pci_probe(), which is only
> > > set as ".probe" in struct pci_driver.
> > >
> > > Despite never getting called from atomic context, de4x5_hw_init()
> > > calls mdelay() to busily wait. This is not necessary and can be
> > > replaced with usleep_range() to  avoid busy waiting.
> > >
> > > This is found by a static analysis tool named DCNS written by myself.
> > > And I also manually check it.
> > Did you actually test this?  The usual reason for wanting m/udelay is
> > that the timing must be exact.  The driver is filled with mdelay()s for
> > this reason.  The one you've picked on is in the init path so it won't
> > affect the runtime in any way.  I also don't think we have the hrtimer
> > machinery for usleep_range() to work properly on parisc, so I don't
> > think the replacement works.
> >
> > James
>
> Hello, James.
> Thanks for your reply :)
>
> I agree that usleep_range() here will not much affect the real 
> execution of this driver.
>
> But I think usleep_range() can more opportunity for other threads to 
> use the CPU core to schedule during waiting.
> That is why I detect mdelay() that can be replaced with msleep() or 
> usleep_range().

James is right, You have added all usleep_range() during system boot-up 
time.
During boot-up system will run as single threaded. Where this change will
not make much sense. System first priority is match the exact timing on
each and every boot-up.

~arvind

> Best wishes,
> Jia-Ju Bai