Re: [PATCH libata-dev-2.6:sil24 05/07] sil24: use longer delay function and less iteration in reset_controller

[Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
>> 05_sil24_mdelay-instead-of-udelay.patch
>>
>>     loop 100 times with mdelay(1) instead of 1000 times with
>>     udelay(100) in sil24_reset_controller.
>>
>>     Jeff, is this what you wanted?  If not, just ignore this
>>     patch.  The following patches will apply without this one.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
>>
>>  sata_sil24.c |   10 +++++++---
>>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: work/drivers/scsi/sata_sil24.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- work.orig/drivers/scsi/sata_sil24.c    2005-07-30 
>> 19:13:40.000000000 +0900
>> +++ work/drivers/scsi/sata_sil24.c    2005-07-30 19:13:40.000000000 +0900
>> @@ -445,9 +445,13 @@ static void sil24_reset_controller(struc
>>      writel(PORT_CS_DEV_RST, port + PORT_CTRL_STAT);
>>      readl(port + PORT_CTRL_STAT);    /* sync */
>>  
>> -    /* Max ~100ms */
>> -    for (cnt = 0; cnt < 1000; cnt++) {
>> -        udelay(100);
>> +    /*
>> +     * Max ~100ms.
>> +     * FIXME: 100ms is an arbitrary value, get spec and use
>> +     *        accurate value.
>> +     */
>> +    for (cnt = 0; cnt < 100; cnt++) {
>> +        mdelay(1);
>>          tmp = readl(port + PORT_CTRL_STAT);
> 
> 
> I forget what the discussion resulted in, for this change.
> 
> For error handling, we typically want to move to process context (if not 
> there already), and then use msleep() and friends.
> 

  Yeap, that's exactly what I did in sil24 driver against new EH/NCQ 
helpers.  As we don't have EH thread luxury in mainline yet, I had to 
convert it to mdelay.  Once new EH (in whatever form) is in place, we 
should be able to convert all mdelay's in reset routines to msleep's.

-- 
tejun