On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 06:45:41PM +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote: > > So, this isn't actually quite a busy wait because we do a schedule() > > rather than a cpu_relax() but still it could devolve into that - 20ms > > seems a long time to burn doing that. If we're expecting this to finish > > very quickly can we do an initial busy wait then fall back to something > > with an actual sleep or soemthing? > We will need to keep the initial usleep_range(). So do you think of the > following: > 1. usleep_range > 2. busy_wait for BM_POWER_STS_DC_OK > 3. msleep (for the timeout case) That's what I'm suggesting - do the initial busy wait for a reasonably short time period and then fall back to something that sleeps.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
