On Saturday 28 February 2015 08:01:11 Scott Branden wrote: > > The udelay(10) that the other drivers have seems about appropriate then, > > and we can independently think of a way to refine the interface. > > Please add a comment that explains the rate. Also, is there some kind > > of FIFO present in the hwrng device? If it can store close to 1ms work > > of data (1000 bits), you can just use an msleep(1) to wait for the > > pool to recover. > FIFO is 512 bits. I will look as to whether we can live with 1/2 > throughput. In that case, I think usleep_range(min(len * 8, 500), 500)) would be a good compromise: it waits at most until the fifo is full, but might return earlier if enough bits are available to fulfill the request. Arnd -- 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
