On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 09:32:35PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:20:10 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 09:13:19PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:57:51 +0800, Eric Miao wrote: > > > > One other better and cleaner approach to such inconsistency issue is > > > > to have a timeout_ms field, and having i2c-gpio.c driver to convert this > > > > to jiffies using msec_to_jiffies() at run-time. > > > > > > With what benefit? Expressing time values in units of HZ is very > > > frequent in the kernel code and shouldn't actually surprise anyone. > > > > Actually, this patch shows there is confusion. > > > > "Assume '100' means 100ms here and adapt accordingly." > > > > Since this patch is for ARM, where HZ=100, the above patch is not a > > simple "convert how we derive this constant" patch - it's a functional > > change, reducing the timeouts by a factor of 10. > > > > Could that be because the patch author misinterpreted the HZ-based > > values? > > I admit I would have assumed 100 -> HZ, as hard-coded HZ-dependent > value typically assume HZ=100. > > > I suspect I'm not the only one who thinks that the latter of "HZ / 10" > > "100ms" is easier to read and comprehend without mistake. > > OTOH, converting from ms to jiffies each time you need the value has a > cost. True; what I did for MMC stuff is converted it from ms to jiffies at initialization time when copying it in from platform data in the driver's probe function. I'm not saying that I care either way, I'm merely showing that dealing with HZ-based values can be (maybe unexpectedly) more error prone. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
