On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 01:20:11PM +0200, Phoebe Buckheister wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:51:40 +0530
> Varka Bhadram <varkabhad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 06/27/2014 04:23 PM, Alexander Aring wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 04:14:54PM +0530, Varka Bhadram wrote:
> > >> On 06/27/2014 03:49 PM, Alexander Aring wrote:
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <alex.ar...@gmail.com>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c | 6 +++++-
> > >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
> > >>> b/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c index efaa3c0..00fbba2 100644
> > >>> --- a/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
> > >>> +++ b/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
> > >>> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ struct at86rf230_local;
> > >>> * All timings are in us.
> > >>> */
> > >>> struct at86rf2xx_chip_data {
> > >>> + u16 t_sleep_cycle;
> > >>> u16 t_channel_switch;
> > >>> u16 t_reset_to_off;
> > >>> u16 t_off_to_aack;
> > >>> @@ -1249,6 +1250,7 @@ static struct ieee802154_ops at86rf230_ops
> > >>> = { };
> > >>> static struct at86rf2xx_chip_data at86rf233_data = {
> > >>> + .t_sleep_cycle = 330,
> > >>> .t_channel_switch = 11,
> > >>> .t_reset_to_off = 26,
> > >>> .t_off_to_aack = 80,
> > >>> @@ -1265,6 +1267,7 @@ static struct at86rf2xx_chip_data
> > >>> at86rf233_data = { };
> > >>> static struct at86rf2xx_chip_data at86rf231_data = {
> > >>> + .t_sleep_cycle = 330,
> > >>> .t_channel_switch = 24,
> > >>> .t_reset_to_off = 37,
> > >>> .t_off_to_aack = 110,
> > >>> @@ -1281,6 +1284,7 @@ static struct at86rf2xx_chip_data
> > >>> at86rf231_data = { };
> > >>> static struct at86rf2xx_chip_data at86rf212_data = {
> > >>> + .t_sleep_cycle = 330,
> > >>> .t_channel_switch = 11,
> > >>> .t_reset_to_off = 26,
> > >>> .t_off_to_aack = 110,
> > >>> @@ -1340,7 +1344,7 @@ static int at86rf230_hw_init(struct
> > >>> at86rf230_local *lp) if (rc)
> > >>> return rc;
> > >>> /* Wait the next SLEEP cycle */
> > >>> - msleep(100);
> > >>> + udelay(lp->data->t_sleep_cycle);
> > >> udelay_range() preffered over udelay() ?...
> > > There is no udelay_range function, I think what you mean is
> > > usleep_range. The usleep_range function would start the scheduler.
> > > This waits for the current chips 330 us. This is a very small. The
> > > udelay function can handle the 330 us delay, so why not?
> >
> > In the CHIP perspective 330us is also a large time. Its better to be
> > in NON_ATOMIC CONTEXT
> >
> > see
> > :http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt#L67
>
> It's a hardware init function that will be called once or twice, and
> definitely not ten times or more over the life of the module. If this
> is a point for contention, then the driver is obviously perfect
> otherwise.
>
This could be necessary for a booting times, to save 330us. But with
this argument I reconsider if I should do a usleep_range in the state
change if it's different than 1 us, same for channel switching.
- Alex
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition
Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft
_______________________________________________
Linux-zigbee-devel mailing list
Linux-zigbee-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-zigbee-devel
