Re: [PATCH] ad1848 and cs4231 busy loop replacement

[Rene Herman <rene.herman@gmail.com>]

On 09/10/2007 02:42 PM, Krzysztof Helt wrote:

> On 9/10/07, Rene Herman <rene.herman@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Well, no, sorry, but I consider that to be completely breaking the logic of
>> the code.
> 
> No I changed the logic of this code not to wait for specifically for
> callibration "start" but into calibration "under way".

No, waiting for calibration the be under way is what my 0/1 ms does. You are 
waiting for it to be nearly done, which is complete nonsense. One line below 
we are waiting for 250 ms (generally with _one_ pass through the loop -- we 
only wake up through signals) anyway!

The no delay at all from cs4231 is the logic -- when we've dropped MCE, ACI 
comes up (when auto-calibrating) and we only wait for it to finish. For 
ad1848, ACI up may take 5 cycles from MCE down so we delay 1 ms so we know 
we're testing correctly.

>> Your: wait unconditionally until calibration _nearly_ done, then go wait for
>> it for 250 ms to be really done.
>>
>> Mine: wait unconditionally until calibration has started, then go wait for
>> it for 250 ms to finish.

[ ... ]

> So the only difference is 6 (or 1) ms and this time will be spent in
> the loop anyway. Are we arguing 1ms (for CS4231) in 250ms waiting
> loop?

No, we are arguing maintaining code. Do not obscure the code flow for no 
reason. Fix your logic or (for what it's worth) I am going to NAK the change.

> I don't understand "keep them in sync".

In sync source-code wise. While the no delay from cs4231 may be the rule, 
ad1848 needs a small delay so if you'd wanted to keep them looking the same 
I wouldn't care about a 1 ms delay for cs4231 as well. If you don't, fine as 
well.

Rene.