> -----Original Message----- > From: Menon, Nishanth > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 3:48 PM > To: G, Manjunath Kondaiah; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Imberton Guilhem; Mike Chan; Nayak, Rajendra; Roger > Quadros; Kalle Jokiniemi; Reddy, Teerth; Kevin Hilman; Paul > Walmsley; Hogander Jouni > Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2 v3] OMAP3: PM: SR: SmartReflex Refactor Rev4.0 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: G, Manjunath Kondaiah > > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 3:40 AM > > To: Menon, Nishanth; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: Imberton Guilhem; Mike Chan; Nayak, Rajendra; Roger > Quadros; Kalle > > Jokiniemi; Reddy, Teerth; Kevin Hilman; Paul Walmsley; > Hogander Jouni > > Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2 v3] OMAP3: PM: SR: SmartReflex > Refactor Rev4.0 > > > > > > As per your comments for other patches when ever there is > udelay usage, > > cpu_relax is the better option. I see there are lot of > udelay(...) calls > > used in this patch. Why can't you use cpu_relax() or schedule(). > > Any specific reason? > > > Don’t really want to do cpu_relax in irq_locked context.. if > you look at the code flow, the call from cpu_idle is in > irq_locked.. Further this delay is part of bring up form > saved context where there is nothing else scheduled + we > don’t want anything else scheduled (and causing a change in > scheduling decision). So unfortunately, unlike standard > drivers, this cannot use the same reasoning. >
NAK. My understanding is that, SR functions will be called during voltage scaling also. Voltage scaling will happen in non IRQ locked context. Please clarify if I am wrong. -Manjunath
