Hi,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:37 AM Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>
> On 13/06/2019 18:11, Doug Anderson wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:04 AM Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> >
> >> Hmmm, I expect the typical use-case to be:
> >> "HW manual states operation X completes in 100 µs.
> >> Let's call usleep_ran
On 13/06/2019 18:11, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:04 AM Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> Hmmm, I expect the typical use-case to be:
>> "HW manual states operation X completes in 100 µs.
>> Let's call usleep_range(100, foo); before hitting the reg."
>>
>> And foo needs to be a "reasona
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:04 AM Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>
> On 13/06/2019 14:42, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:16 PM Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> >
> >> Chopping max delay in 4 seems excessive. Let's just cut it in half.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez
> >> ---
> >> When
On 13/06/2019 14:42, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:16 PM Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> Chopping max delay in 4 seems excessive. Let's just cut it in half.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez
>> ---
>> When max_us=100, old_min was 26 us; new_min would be 50 us
>> Was there a good rea
Chopping max delay in 4 seems excessive. Let's just cut it in half.
Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez
---
When max_us=100, old_min was 26 us; new_min would be 50 us
Was there a good reason for the 1/4th?
Is new_min=0 a problem? (for max=1)
---
include/linux/iopoll.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertio
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:16 PM Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>
> Chopping max delay in 4 seems excessive. Let's just cut it in half.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez
> ---
> When max_us=100, old_min was 26 us; new_min would be 50 us
> Was there a good reason for the 1/4th?
> Is new_min=0 a problem? (for
6 matches
Mail list logo
