----------------snippet--------------------- >> >>>> i guess cpu_relax() is better here. >> >> I guess cpu_relax is not required because this part of code is called >> only >> >> from >> >> board file during boot-up. Hence this would be the only code to be >> >> executed. >> What is your opinion on this? >Cpu_relax is still the better way of doing it. Please clarify why.
>> >>>allows the kernel to do somethin else while we also ensure we have a 5 >> >>>usec guarenteed delay before giving up.. >> >> Doesn't modulo operation cost more in terms of performance? Any >> specific >> >> reason for specific 5 microseconds? >> >You could replace it with >> operator if you like and use 2^x multiples.. >> >I am just sticking 5 us there based on your original code.. >> >so the same logic over here I suppose.. unless I missed something? >> I was using attempts as 5, as my intension was to attempt only 5 times and >> not >> in terms of usec as I could not find any details in any document for >> maximum >> time for the bit to get set/reset. According to your code, it would >> attempt to read >> the register 25 times with a delay of 5 microseconds min during worst case >> scenario. >Please find the h/w timeout value and resubmit the patch.. As of now, I do not have any information on these details. Please share any details if you can. -- 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
