All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: khali@linux-fr.org (Jean Delvare)
To: adobriyan@mail.ru
Cc: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	LM Sensors <sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2.6] I2C: New chip driver: sis5595
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 06:25:35 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <w2Am1HDp.1107265957.3006340.khali@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200502011612.27220.adobriyan@mail.ru>
In-Reply-To: <20050125220945.GA23560@bode.aurel32.net>


Hi Alexey,

> What about making sis5595_update_device() a simple jiffies-related wrapper
> around function that updates "struct sis5595" unconditionally. I'm not sure
> I plugged sis5595_do_update_client right, but you'll get the idea.

Yeah I get the idea, I think I had something similar in mind some times
ago but it failed to please me for the following reasons:

1* It forces a chip update (i.e. full register read) on driver load (or
more precisely on client detection). Since I2C/SMBus accesses are really
slow, it will result in a significant time penalty. As the read values
are only considered valid for 1.5 second (or equivalent duration for the
other drivers), this penalty brings statistically no benefit in return.

2* Each subsequent update (or attempt thereof) will conditionally require
an additional function call, which represents a small time penalty again
(much more than a comparison if I'm not mistaken).

We are only trying to avoid a conditional test and to get rid of a local
variable, and end up with a much slower init and an additional function
call later. The loss seems to overweight the gain, don't you think?

So I wouldn't go that way. To me, the only acceptable simplification is
the initialization of "last_updated" to something which ensures that
the first update attempt will succeed - providing we actually can do
that.

Now I wonder, this is certainly not the only drivers in the kernel which
need to do this, right? Didn't the other ones solve the issue already?
Would be worth taking a look.

Thanks,
--
Jean Delvare

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Jean Delvare" <khali@linux-fr.org>
To: adobriyan@mail.ru
Cc: "Aurelien Jarno" <aurelien@aurel32.net>,
	"Greg KH" <greg@kroah.com>, "LKML" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"LM Sensors" <sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] I2C: New chip driver: sis5595
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:52:37 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <w2Am1HDp.1107265957.3006340.khali@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200502011612.27220.adobriyan@mail.ru>


Hi Alexey,

> What about making sis5595_update_device() a simple jiffies-related wrapper
> around function that updates "struct sis5595" unconditionally. I'm not sure
> I plugged sis5595_do_update_client right, but you'll get the idea.

Yeah I get the idea, I think I had something similar in mind some times
ago but it failed to please me for the following reasons:

1* It forces a chip update (i.e. full register read) on driver load (or
more precisely on client detection). Since I2C/SMBus accesses are really
slow, it will result in a significant time penalty. As the read values
are only considered valid for 1.5 second (or equivalent duration for the
other drivers), this penalty brings statistically no benefit in return.

2* Each subsequent update (or attempt thereof) will conditionally require
an additional function call, which represents a small time penalty again
(much more than a comparison if I'm not mistaken).

We are only trying to avoid a conditional test and to get rid of a local
variable, and end up with a much slower init and an additional function
call later. The loss seems to overweight the gain, don't you think?

So I wouldn't go that way. To me, the only acceptable simplification is
the initialization of "last_updated" to something which ensures that
the first update attempt will succeed - providing we actually can do
that.

Now I wonder, this is certainly not the only drivers in the kernel which
need to do this, right? Didn't the other ones solve the issue already?
Would be worth taking a look.

Thanks,
--
Jean Delvare

  parent reply	other threads:[~2005-05-19  6:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-02-01 12:20 [PATCH 2.6] I2C: New chip driver: sis5595 Alexey Dobriyan
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2005-02-01 11:49 ` Jean Delvare
2005-05-19  6:25   ` Jean Delvare
2005-02-01 14:12   ` Alexey Dobriyan
2005-05-19  6:25     ` Alexey Dobriyan
2005-02-01 13:52     ` Jean Delvare [this message]
2005-05-19  6:25       ` Jean Delvare
2005-02-01 14:43       ` Jean Delvare
2005-05-19  6:25         ` Jean Delvare
2005-02-01 16:57       ` Alexey Dobriyan
2005-05-19  6:25         ` Alexey Dobriyan
2005-02-01 16:42         ` Jean Delvare
2005-05-19  6:25           ` Jean Delvare
2005-02-01 12:14 ` Aurelien Jarno
2005-05-19  6:25   ` Aurelien Jarno
2005-02-01 16:54   ` Greg KH
2005-05-19  6:25     ` Greg KH
2005-02-01 17:00     ` Jean Delvare
2005-05-19  6:25       ` Jean Delvare
2005-02-01 16:55   ` Greg KH
2005-05-19  6:25     ` Greg KH
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-02-06 20:26 [PATCH 2.6] I2C: New chip driver: sis5595 (resubmit) Aurélien Jarno
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Aurélien Jarno
2005-02-17 22:25 ` Greg KH
2005-05-19  6:25   ` Greg KH
2005-01-25 22:09 [PATCH 2.6] I2C: New chip driver: sis5595 Aurélien Jarno
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Aurélien Jarno
2005-01-31 18:21 ` Greg KH
2005-05-19  6:25   ` Greg KH
2005-02-01 10:11   ` Aurelien Jarno
2005-05-19  6:25     ` Aurelien Jarno

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=w2Am1HDp.1107265957.3006340.khali@localhost \
    --to=khali@linux-fr.org \
    --cc=adobriyan@mail.ru \
    --cc=aurelien@aurel32.net \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.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.