From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: sleep in _mv88e6xxx_stats_wait Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 17:28:35 +0200 Message-ID: <20150718152835.GF17961@lunn.ch> References: <1436547449-26927-1-git-send-email-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> <20150710171027.GB6585@groeck-UX31A> <1055594065.210272.1436552447158.JavaMail.zimbra@savoirfairelinux.com> <20150710183623.GB19854@roeck-us.net> <645518234.216003.1436556107630.JavaMail.zimbra@savoirfairelinux.com> <20150710200514.GA9469@groeck-UX31A> <20150718145830.GA17961@lunn.ch> <1971016402.292095.1437232999941.JavaMail.zimbra@savoirfairelinux.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Guenter Roeck , netdev , Florian Fainelli , David , linux-kernel , kernel To: Vivien Didelot Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1971016402.292095.1437232999941.JavaMail.zimbra@savoirfairelinux.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 11:23:19AM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote: > Hi all, > > ----- On Jul 18, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Andrew Lunn andrew@lunn.ch wrote: > > >> Good point. The timeout is most definitely quite large and for sure on > >> the safe side. It might make sense to add some statistics gathering to > >> see how long the maximum observed delay actually is. > > > > Hi All > > > > Statistics are something which can be used a lot, i bursts and > > interactivily. ATU, VTU etc, are much less often used. So different > > delays might be justified. > > > > I agree about doing some statistics gathering to determine actual > > delays needed. > > > > Andrew > > What do you think about something like this? Hi Vivien Lets get some actually statistics first. I would suggest for testing you make _mv88e6xxx_wait() a busy loop and time how long it actually takes for different busy bits to clear. We should also test it on different families. Andrew