On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam
<manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 01:43:33PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 12:11:00AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam
>> > <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > Add Actions Semiconductor Owl family S900 I2C driver.
>> > > +static int owl_i2c_reset(struct owl_i2c_dev *i2c_dev)
>> > > +{
>> >
>> > > + mdelay(1);
>> >
>> > But now, since it's not used in atomic context, we may switch to
>> > usleep_range() / msleep() instead.
>> >
>>
>> okay, will use msleep()
>>
>
> Just realised, I have to use spinlock for the entire owl_i2c_master_xfer
> function, so can't use sleep* for delay.
>
>> > > + owl_i2c_update_reg(i2c_dev->base + OWL_I2C_REG_CTL,
>> > > + OWL_I2C_CTL_EN, true);
>> > > +
>> >
>> > > + /* Wait 50ms for FIFO reset complete */
>> > > + do {
>> >
>> > > + mdelay(1);
>> >
>> > Especially in this case it's very important.
>> >
>>
>> Okay.
>
> Same here, but I'm not sure about the latency. What is your suggestion?
Look at other i2c bus drivers, check with data sheet you have, try to
refactor / redesign code that wouldn't need to sleep so long in atomic
context.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
