From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ray Jui Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] i2c: iproc: Add Broadcom iProc I2C Driver Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:15:41 -0800 Message-ID: <54BD57DD.9080002@broadcom.com> References: <1421451737-7107-1-git-send-email-rjui@broadcom.com> <1421451737-7107-3-git-send-email-rjui@broadcom.com> <54BB795C.6040402@broadcom.com> <20150118094741.GE22880@pengutronix.de> <20150118110658.GA1113@katana> <20150118111759.GG22880@pengutronix.de> <54BB9D2B.20408@broadcom.com> <20150118115650.GH22880@pengutronix.de> <54BBA36A.10608@broadcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54BBA36A.10608-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Arend van Spriel , =?windows-1252?Q?Uwe_Kleine-?= =?windows-1252?Q?K=F6nig?= Cc: Mark Rutland , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Ian Campbell , Florian Fainelli , Russell King , Pawel Moll , Scott Branden , Wolfram Sang , Christian Daudt , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Matt Porter , Rob Herring , bcm-kernel-feedback-list-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Kumar Gala , Grant Likely , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 1/18/2015 4:13 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 01/18/15 12:56, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:46:51PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: >>> On 01/18/15 12:17, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote: >>>> Hello Wolfram, >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:06:58PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:47:41AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrot= e: >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:14:04AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote= : >>>>>>> On 01/17/15 00:42, Ray Jui wrote: >>>>>>>> + complete_all(&iproc_i2c->done); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking over this code it seems to me there is always a single >>>>>>> process waiting for iproc_i2c->done to complete. So using compl= ete() >>>>>>> here would suffice. >>>>>> Yeah, there is always only a single thread waiting. That means b= oth >>>>>> complete and complete_all are suitable. AFAIK there is no reason >>>>>> to pick >>>>>> one over the other in this case. >>>>> >>>>> Clarity? >>>> And which do you consider more clear? complete_all might result in= the >>>> question: "Is there>1 waiter?" and complete might yield to "What a= bout >>>> the other waiters?". If you already know there is only one, both a= re on >>>> par on clarity. Might only be me?! I don't care much. >>> >>> Maybe it is me, but it is not about questions but it is about >>> implicit statements that the code makes (or reader derives from it)= =2E >>> When using complete_all you indicate to the reader "there can be >>> more than one waiter". When using complete it indicates "there is >>> only one waiter". If those statements are not true that is a code >> No, complete works just fine in the presence of>1 waiter. It just wa= kes >> a single waiter and all others continue to wait. >=20 > Yes. Agree. >=20 >> That is, for single-waiter situations there is no semantic differenc= e >> between complete and complete_all. But there is a difference for >> multi-waiter queues. >=20 > Indeed. >=20 >> I think this is just a matter of your POV in the single-waiter >> situation: complete might be intuitive because you just completed a >> single task and complete_all might be intuitive because it signals >> "I'm completely done, there is noone waiting for me any more.". >=20 > Ok. Let's leave it to the author's intuition or to say it differently > "sorry for the noise" ;-) Will stay with complete_all since I meant to say "after this transfer complete interrupt, there should be no one waiting anymore (although there's currently only one waiter, and will likely stay that way)" Thanks! >=20 > Regards, > Arend >=20 >> Best regards >> Uwe >> >=20 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" i= n the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html