On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Guzman Lugo, Fernando <x0095...@ti.com> wrote: > > Yes, I applied this; in fact I have applied all the patches. If I increase > the timeout there are no problems. The test I run creates 4 process and each > one does several a lot of calls to InputChnl and OutputChnl, so I think this > test is using the mailbox a lot and would be better a bigger timeout. What do > you think?
How fast are these messages sent? Can you track down which functions are calling CHNLSM_InterruptDSP2 and making these timeouts happen. I think it's safe to leave the timeout at 10, but that means it's possible the code will be busy-looping up to 10 ms which will increase the CPU load. Somebody from Nokia (Siarhei?) suggested to idle-wait for the mbox empty irq, I think that's the best way to implement this, but at least for the use cases I'm interested in (video encoding/decoding) timeouts don't seem to be an issue anymore. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
