From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Cc: ymohanma <yogesh.mohan.marimuthu@intel.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very small delays
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:57:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zijxpo18.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8737hpr32a.fsf@intel.com>
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote:
>> usleep_range() is intended for delays in the 10us to 10ms range that need
>> good precision. a useleep_range(1, will effectively be no more than an
>> imprecise udelay with some added cache disruption as it will fire more or
>> less immediately - use udelay() here.
>>
>> Fixes: commit be4fc046bed3 ("drm/i915: add VLV DSI PLL Calculations")
>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
>> ---
>>
>> Problem located by coccinelle
>>
>> The requirement of waiting at least 0.5 us is assured with the udelay(1)
>> here which should be more effective than a usleep_range() - would
>> ndelay(500) make sense here ?
>
> This is in the modeset path, i.e. pretty slow anyway. In this case, the
> point is not to try hard to minimize the wait, the point is to guarantee
> "at least 0.5 us" has passed. If the CPU can do something else,
> including dozing off, in the mean time, great. I think we should stick
> with usleep_range().
>
> I think the question is, how do we express this in code? IMO udelay() is
> not the answer.
>
> And why doesn't usleep_range() kernel-doc mention anything about the
> ranges?
>
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
>>
>> Patch was compile tested with: x86_64_defconfig (implies CONFIG_DRM_I915)
>>
>> Patch is against 4.9.0 (localvrsion-next is next-20161214)
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_pll.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_pll.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_pll.c
>> index 56eff60..0ec040e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_pll.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_pll.c
>> @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ static void vlv_enable_dsi_pll(struct intel_encoder *encoder,
>> config->dsi_pll.ctrl & ~DSI_PLL_VCO_EN);
>>
>> /* wait at least 0.5 us after ungating before enabling VCO */
>> - usleep_range(1, 10);
>> + udelay(1);
>>
>> vlv_cck_write(dev_priv, CCK_REG_DSI_PLL_CONTROL, config->dsi_pll.ctrl);
PS. This vlv_cck_write() call will do sideband communication with
millisecond range timeouts.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Cc: ymohanma <yogesh.mohan.marimuthu@intel.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very small delays
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:57:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zijxpo18.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8737hpr32a.fsf@intel.com>
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote:
>> usleep_range() is intended for delays in the 10us to 10ms range that need
>> good precision. a useleep_range(1, will effectively be no more than an
>> imprecise udelay with some added cache disruption as it will fire more or
>> less immediately - use udelay() here.
>>
>> Fixes: commit be4fc046bed3 ("drm/i915: add VLV DSI PLL Calculations")
>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
>> ---
>>
>> Problem located by coccinelle
>>
>> The requirement of waiting at least 0.5 us is assured with the udelay(1)
>> here which should be more effective than a usleep_range() - would
>> ndelay(500) make sense here ?
>
> This is in the modeset path, i.e. pretty slow anyway. In this case, the
> point is not to try hard to minimize the wait, the point is to guarantee
> "at least 0.5 us" has passed. If the CPU can do something else,
> including dozing off, in the mean time, great. I think we should stick
> with usleep_range().
>
> I think the question is, how do we express this in code? IMO udelay() is
> not the answer.
>
> And why doesn't usleep_range() kernel-doc mention anything about the
> ranges?
>
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
>>
>> Patch was compile tested with: x86_64_defconfig (implies CONFIG_DRM_I915)
>>
>> Patch is against 4.9.0 (localvrsion-next is next-20161214)
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_pll.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_pll.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_pll.c
>> index 56eff60..0ec040e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_pll.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_pll.c
>> @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ static void vlv_enable_dsi_pll(struct intel_encoder *encoder,
>> config->dsi_pll.ctrl & ~DSI_PLL_VCO_EN);
>>
>> /* wait at least 0.5 us after ungating before enabling VCO */
>> - usleep_range(1, 10);
>> + udelay(1);
>>
>> vlv_cck_write(dev_priv, CCK_REG_DSI_PLL_CONTROL, config->dsi_pll.ctrl);
PS. This vlv_cck_write() call will do sideband communication with
millisecond range timeouts.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-15 8:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-15 4:03 [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very small delays Nicholas Mc Guire
2016-12-15 8:47 ` Jani Nikula
2016-12-15 8:47 ` Jani Nikula
2016-12-15 8:56 ` Nicholas Mc Guire
2016-12-15 9:33 ` Jani Nikula
2016-12-15 9:33 ` Jani Nikula
2016-12-15 8:57 ` Jani Nikula [this message]
2016-12-15 8:57 ` Jani Nikula
2016-12-15 17:15 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
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=87zijxpo18.fsf@intel.com \
--to=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=hofrat@osadl.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yogesh.mohan.marimuthu@intel.com \
/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.