From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nate Lawson Subject: RE: [PATCH] Stall semantics Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:45:03 -0700 (PDT) Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <20030930144300.D81965@root.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: "Moore, Robert" Cc: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Moore, Robert wrote: > The ACPI spec says this: > > 16.2.3.4.1.15 Stall (Stall for a Short Time) Yes, this is what I was referring to. > StallTerm := Stall( > MicroSecs //TermArg=>Integer > ) > The Stall term is used to implement short-term timing requirements. > Execution is delayed for at least the required number of microseconds. > The implementation of Stall is OS-specific, but must not relinquish > control of the processor. Because of this, delays longer than 100 > microseconds must use Sleep instead of Stall. ----- > > This seems to imply that sleep() cannot be used to implement long > "stalls" because it can relinquish the cpu. Please read the patch and the last sentence you quoted from the spec. Your code already calls Sleep instead of Stall for values > 1000 us. I simply made it stick to the spec of > 100 us. -Nate ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf