On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote:
> we might end-up waiting > for atleast a jiffy even though the response for that message from the > remote is received via interrupt and processed in relatively smaller > time granularity. > That is wrong. If the controller supports TX interrupt it should set txdone_irq, which prevents polling i.e, controller driver calls mbox_chan_txdone. If the controller doesn't support TX interrupt but the client receives some ack packet, then the client should set knows_txdone and call mbox_client_txdone. Again you don't have to wait on polling. If there's neither TX interrupt nor some ack packet, only then it has to rely on polling. In which case, I doubt if we can desire some functionality that requires sub-jiffy notification of TX_done. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
