On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:20:01PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:52:34AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> > Even on fast systems a 2 microsecond delay is most likely more efficient >> >> >> > as a busy-wait loop. The overhead of a hrtimer does not seem warranted - >> >> >> > change this to a udelay(2). >> >> >> >> >> >> Similar concerns as in [1]. We don't need the accuracy of udelay() here, >> >> >> so this boils down to which is the better use of CPU. We could probably >> >> >> relax the max delay more if that was helpful. But I'm not immediately >> >> >> sold on "is most likely more efficient" which sounds like a gut feeling. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm sorry it's not clear in my other reply that I do appreciate >> >> >> addressing incorrect/silly use of usleep_range(); I'm just not (yet) >> >> >> convinced udelay() is the answer. >> >> > >> >> > if the delay is not critical and all that is needed >> >> > is an assurance that it is greater than X us then >> >> > usleep_range is fine with a relaxed limit. >> >> > So from what you wrote my patch proposal is wrong - the >> >> > udelay() is not the way to got. >> >> > My intent is to get rid of very small usleep_range() cases >> >> > so if usleep_range(20,50) causes no issues with this driver >> >> > and does not induce any performance penalty then that would >> >> > be the way to go I think. >> >> >> >> Okay, so I looked at the code, and I looked at our spec, and I looked at >> >> the MIPI D-PHY spec, and I cried a little. >> >> >> >> Long story short, I think usleep_range(10, 50) will be fine. >> > >> > Note that I really want to see a comment next to every delay like this >> > documenting the actual hardware requirement, if the delay used by the >> > code doesn't 100% match it. >> >> Our spec says, "Wait for 2us for ULPS to complete". That's a simplistic >> view wrt D-PHY, and our code doesn't even match the spec. Hence the >> tears. Want to propose a wording for the comment so we can apply this >> change, without going for a full rewrite of the sequence? >> > is that suitable or am I overdoing it ? > > - usleep_range(2, 3); > + /* delay for at least 2us - relaxed to 10-50 to allow > + * hrtimer subsystem to optimize uncritical timer handling > + */ > + usleep_range(10, 50); I'm fine with that. Or maybe just make it "relaxed to allow" without the values. Jani. > > thx! > hofrat -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
