On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: > >>> >>> Again, sorry for misleading comment, we do need hrtimer as replied on >>> scpi thread. Any other concern with this patch ? >>> >> Polling by hrtimers is OK. Not to mean this is the best solution for >> your platform. Please revise the changelog completely. >> > > OK, how about: > > "The mailbox core uses jiffy based timer to handle polling for the > transmit completion. If the client/protocol have/support notification > of the last packet transmit completion via ACK packet, then we tick the > Tx state machine immediately in the callback. However if the client > doesn't support that mechanism we might end-up waiting for atleast a > jiffy even though the remote is ready to receive the next request. > > This patch switches the timer used for that polling from jiffy-based > to hrtimer-based so that we can support polling at much higher time > resolution."
Perfect. -- 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/
