From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sakari Ailus Subject: Re: [RFC] i2c-omap: Don't wait needlessly Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:35:32 +0200 Message-ID: <492BC6E4.7030104@nokia.com> References: <12246059481717-git-send-email-sakari.ailus@nokia.com> <20081024131740.64641d26.jarkko.nikula@nokia.com> <4905EA56.5050309@nokia.com> <20081121214353.GA4927@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.233]:46443 "EHLO mgw-mx06.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751000AbYKYJix (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:38:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081121214353.GA4927@atomide.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: ext Tony Lindgren Cc: Jarkko Nikula , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org ext Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Sakari Ailus [081027 09:22]: >> Jarkko Nikula wrote: >>> I would rather, if there is no need for such a long delay like >>> OMAP_I2C_TIMEOUT, remove that time_after and msleep(1) stuff and >>> just loop few iterations with udelay(1). Zero thinked & tested diff >>> attached. >> I just though of allowing the reset to take longer as I have no idea how >> long it could take, let alone other versions of OMAP. >> >>> I would say that ndelay(1) just doesn't look relevant to < 1 GHz >>> cpus :-) >> Good point. On ARM ndelay(1) seems to be equal to udelay(1) at the moment. >> >> I actually just removed the ndelay(1) and again, "delay" won't get past >> 1 if I print it after the loop. >> >> It'd be nice to know how it works on other OMAP versions before making >> such changes. :-) > > Let me know if you come up with a refreshed patch for this, ignoring > for now. I think the need for this patch has largely gone away as i2c-omap appears not to do msleep() anymore for every second transfer or so. -- Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@nokia.com