Hi Alexander, Alexander Stein (alexander.stein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > I'm still not convinced that using polling is simpler. By using > readl_poll_timeout() you will also get an interrupt, the timer one. Why > exactly is using polling much (!) simpler? it requires much less code in the driver. > > The selftest should take approx. 450us. Keep the overhead to a minimum > > by polling every 500us. (We've already lowered the timeout to 1.5ms.) > I suppose these times only hold true for a specific peripheral clock > frequency. Is it guaranteed that this frequency is fixed? Good point. The lowest possible peripheral clock frequency is half of what I used for the calculations, i.e. 33.25MHz. That would double the durations. Should be ok for the selftest. But for the initial seed, we'd get into a region where readl_poll_timeout (usleep_range) does no longer make sense. > For using IRQ it's simpler, there is no guessing: you return once the self > test finished. The timeout is identical anyway. I've looked at other callers of readl_poll_timeout. It seems that none of them is called in a driver's probe function or uses an overall timeout of 200ms. I'll keep the interrupt + completion and resubmit the patches for adjusting the timeouts. Thanks, Martin
