On 2012-04-04 17:11, Rafal Prylowski wrote:
> On 2012-04-04 15:23, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wednesday 04 April 2012, Rafal Prylowski wrote:
>>> On 2012-04-03 22:08, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>>>> +static void ep93xx_pata_wait_for_iordy(void __iomem *base)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + unsigned long deadline = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(1000);
>>>>>> + while (!ep93xx_pata_check_iordy(base) &&
>>>>>> + time_is_before_jiffies(deadline))
>>>>>> + cpu_relax();
>>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> Much better for a delay than the previous version. However, it's
>>>> still a busy wait, which is bad for realtime behavior, especially
>>>> since this can potentially take many milliseconds. If possible,
>>>> it should have an msleep() or at least cond_resched() instead of
>>>> the cpu_relax(). Obviously that will only work when no spinlocks
>>>> are held.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, we can't use msleep() or cond_resched() here
>>> - ep93xx_pata_wait_for_iordy() is called from interrupt handler.
>>
>> Well, it also seems inappropriate to have a one second delay timeout
>> inside of the interrupt handler.
>>
>> I suppose if you are emulating what a regular read of the status
>> register does, there isn't much to improve here though.
>>
>> Arnd
>
> According to ATA specification, maximum IORDY pulse width is 1250ns,
> so I'll set timeout to 2ms (I should check this before posting the driver..).
2ms is far too big value... Should be 2us.
RP
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
