On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:29:28 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Matt Redfearn wrote:
> > On 19/10/17 13:43, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > delta = 0;
> > > for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> > > delta += dev->min_delta_ns;
> > > dev->next_event = ktime_add_ns(ktime_get(), delta);
> > > clc = .....
> > > .....
> > >
> > > That makes it more likely to succeed fast. Hmm?
> >
> > That will set the target time to increasing multiples of min_delta_ns in the
> > future, right?
>
> Yes, but without fiddling with min_delta_ns itself.
Grumpf, more extra code for yet another piece of broken hardware
I guess.
> > Sure, it should make it succeed faster - I'll make it like
> > that. Are you OK with the arbitrarily chosen 10 retries?
>
> I lost my crystalball so I have to trust yours :)
The alternative implementation would be to do the retries in
the clockevent driver itself. Then that particular driver can
choose the correct number of retries, no?
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
