From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To: Ruslan Valiyev <linuxoid@gmail.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com>,
Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@analog.com>,
linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: adc: ad7816: add timeout to busy-wait loop
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 12:20:51 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aaAQc036akWiJ4uQ@stanley.mountain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260226082535.69503-1-linuxoid@gmail.com>
On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 08:25:35AM +0000, Ruslan Valiyev wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 05:26:15AM +0000, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Have you able to test this?
>
> No, I don't have AD7816 hardware, compile-tested only.
>
> > Have you investigated the code? It was an atomic, now it's sleeping.
> > This is a huge behavioural change. See my first Q.
>
> You're right, the sleeping change was unnecessary. ad7816_spi_read()
> is only called from ad7816_show_value(), a sysfs show callback, so
> it runs in process context. But for a wait of at most 27 us per the
> datasheet, there's no benefit to sleeping. The atomic variant adds
> the timeout protection while preserving the original busy-wait
> semantics.
>
So this is only from reading the datasheet and the code? I had assumed
this was something you experienced yourself in real life.
regards,
dan carpenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-26 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-26 5:26 [PATCH] staging: iio: adc: ad7816: add timeout to busy-wait loop Ruslan Valiyev
2026-02-26 8:01 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-02-26 8:25 ` Ruslan Valiyev
2026-02-26 9:20 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2026-02-26 8:25 ` [PATCH v2] " Ruslan Valiyev
2026-02-26 9:15 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-02-26 9:29 ` Ruslan Valiyev
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=aaAQc036akWiJ4uQ@stanley.mountain \
--to=dan.carpenter@linaro.org \
--cc=Michael.Hennerich@analog.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dlechner@baylibre.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-staging@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linuxoid@gmail.com \
--cc=nuno.sa@analog.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.