From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: w.sang@pengutronix.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:53:20 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 1/1] ASoC: mxs-saif: add record function In-Reply-To: <65EE16ACC360FA4D99C96DC085B3F77225DB00@039-SN1MPN1-003.039d.mgd.msft.net> References: <1315399910-6525-1-git-send-email-b29396@freescale.com> <20110909133051.GS1912@pengutronix.de> <65EE16ACC360FA4D99C96DC085B3F77225DB00@039-SN1MPN1-003.039d.mgd.msft.net> Message-ID: <20110915135320.GG2284@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > > I think we should use usleep_range for both udelays here? Having a rate > > of 8000, we'd burn 250us here. > > > Yes, I agree that it's a bit long for 8000. > I tried sleep way but I found the trigger function is called with > spin_lock held, so it seems we may not be able to sleep here. > > I think the way of dynamically calculate delay suggested by Liam has > Already minimize the affection, especially for high sample rate, it > may work more efficiency than sleep (context switch cost). > > Do you think if it's reasonable to accept it? Yes, it can be fixed when it becomes necessary Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: