From: Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>
To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
Subject: [ath9k-devel] [ath5k-devel] [PATCH] ath5k/ath9k: Fix 64 bits TSF reads
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:13:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1271452384.16507.16.camel@mj> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1271369246-6892-1-git-send-email-benoit.papillault@free.fr>
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 00:07 +0200, Benoit Papillault wrote:
> It follows the logic mentionned by Derek, with only 2 register reads
> needed at each additional steps instead of 3 (the minimum number of
> register reads is still 3).
I would prefer an approach whereas tsf_upper2 or tsf_upper1 is chosen
based on whether tsf_lower is more or less than 0x80000000 if
(tsf_upper2 - tsf_upper1) is 1. If the difference is not 0 or 1, either
the hardware is broken or the kernel was stuck for so long (71 minutes!)
that getting the exact tsf should be the least worry. That's when
WARN_ON would be appropriate.
The problem with overengineered code is that it doesn't break when it's
better to break and expose the problem :-)
But it's just a suggestion, not a NACK. It's better to have some fix
than no fix at all.
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>
To: Benoit Papillault <benoit.papillault@free.fr>
Cc: lrodriguez@atheros.com, ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath9k-devel@lists.ath5k.org
Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH] ath5k/ath9k: Fix 64 bits TSF reads
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:13:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1271452384.16507.16.camel@mj> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1271369246-6892-1-git-send-email-benoit.papillault@free.fr>
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 00:07 +0200, Benoit Papillault wrote:
> It follows the logic mentionned by Derek, with only 2 register reads
> needed at each additional steps instead of 3 (the minimum number of
> register reads is still 3).
I would prefer an approach whereas tsf_upper2 or tsf_upper1 is chosen
based on whether tsf_lower is more or less than 0x80000000 if
(tsf_upper2 - tsf_upper1) is 1. If the difference is not 0 or 1, either
the hardware is broken or the kernel was stuck for so long (71 minutes!)
that getting the exact tsf should be the least worry. That's when
WARN_ON would be appropriate.
The problem with overengineered code is that it doesn't break when it's
better to break and expose the problem :-)
But it's just a suggestion, not a NACK. It's better to have some fix
than no fix at all.
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-16 21:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-15 22:07 [ath9k-devel] [PATCH] ath5k/ath9k: Fix 64 bits TSF reads Benoit Papillault
2010-04-15 22:07 ` Benoit Papillault
2010-04-16 21:13 ` Pavel Roskin [this message]
2010-04-16 21:13 ` [ath5k-devel] " Pavel Roskin
2010-04-17 13:27 ` [ath9k-devel] " Benoit PAPILLAULT
2010-04-17 13:27 ` Benoit PAPILLAULT
2010-04-17 23:02 ` [ath9k-devel] " Pavel Roskin
2010-04-17 23:02 ` Pavel Roskin
2010-04-17 21:33 ` [ath9k-devel] " Derek Smithies
2010-04-17 21:33 ` Derek Smithies
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=1271452384.16507.16.camel@mj \
--to=proski@gnu.org \
--cc=ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
/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: link
Be 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.