Re: [PATCH/RFC] SPI: add async message handing library to David Brownell's core

[Vitaly Wool <vwool@ru.mvista.com>]

Stephen Street wrote:

>On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 17:06 +0300, Vitaly Wool wrote:
>  
>
>>Greetings,
>>
>>This thingie hasn't been thoroughly tested yet, but it's lightweight
>>and easy to understand so I don't think solving the problems that 
>>may arise will take long. Though I haven't actually done that yet, 
>>I'm sure that Stephen's PXA SSP driver will become easier to understand 
>>and less in footprint and will work faster when it's rewritten using 
>>this library. (Yes, I do expect performance improvement here as the 
>>current implementation schedules multiple tasklets, so 
>>scheduling penalty is high.)
>>    
>>
>
>Is this really true?  Is tasklet scheduling "harder" than kernal thread
>scheduling?  A close look at my PXA SSP SPI implementation will reveal
>that my design is nearly lock-less and callable from any execution
>context (i.e. interrupt context).
>  
>
It's harder in your case because the tasklet is created each time it's 
scheduled again, as far as I see it in your impleemntation.
Each SPI controller thread is created only once so it's more lightweight 
than what you do.

>>+ * spi_queue - (internal) queue the message to be processed asynchronously
>>+ * @spi: SPI device to perform transfer to/from
>>+ * @msg: message to be sent
>>+ * Description:
>>+ * 	This function queues the message to SPI controller's queue.
>>+ */
>>+static int spi_queue(struct spi_device *spi, struct spi_message *msg)
>>+{
>>+	struct threaded_async_data *td = spi->master->context;
>>+	int rc = 0;
>>+
>>+	if (!td) {
>>+		rc = -EINVAL;
>>+		goto out;
>>+	}
>>+
>>+	msg->spi = spi;
>>+	down(&td->lock);
>>+	list_add_tail(&msg->queue, &td->msgs);
>>+	dev_dbg(spi->dev.parent, "message has been queued\n");
>>+	up(&td->lock);
>>+	wake_up_interruptible(&td->wq);
>>+
>>+out:
>>+	return rc;
>>+}
>>+
>>    
>>
>
>This can not be invoke this from "interrupt context" which is a
>requirement for my SPI devices (CS8415A, CS8405A, CS4341).
>
>
>  
>
Okay, not a major issue though. Change mutexes to 
spin_lock_irq/spin_unlock_irq and it's callable from an interrupt 
context, right?

Vitaly