From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qy0-f196.google.com (mail-qy0-f196.google.com [209.85.221.196]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F02DE02E for ; Wed, 27 May 2009 13:12:34 +1000 (EST) Received: by qyk34 with SMTP id 34so7131975qyk.17 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 20:12:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: timur.tabi@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <9e4733910905261801p130f50afie2c50d5723192d44@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090527002530.16740.62502.stgit@terra> <9e4733910905261744j3589ace8wd427ef8a5998eccf@mail.gmail.com> <9e4733910905261801p130f50afie2c50d5723192d44@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 22:12:32 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] Modify mpc5200 AC97 driver to use V9 of spin_event_timeout() From: Timur Tabi To: Jon Smirl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, broonie@sirena.org.uk List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Jon Smirl wrote: > Then why did you need to make your routine that calls cpu_relax()? That gets called only if delay == 0. udelay(0) is a no-op, so if the caller specifies no delay, then I need to manually call cpu_relax(). > I don't know what goes on in the guts of HMT_low() and cpu_relax(), > when you guys decide which one I should use let me know and I can > adjust the patch. Grant, I don't see any reason why "udelay(50)" is unacceptable. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale