On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 9:26 AM Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am Sonntag, den 31.03.2019, 21:25 -0700 schrieb Andrey Smirnov: > > In both cases udelay() is called in non-atomic context, so there's > > really no need to use it there. Change the code to use usleep_range() > > instead. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c > > index c9431a8a7ca1..3f13022991ec 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c > > @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ static int pcie_phy_poll_ack(struct imx6_pcie *imx6_pcie, bool exp_val) > > if (val == exp_val) > > return 0; > > > > - udelay(1); > > + usleep_range(10, 100); > > I'm not sure we want to change this. This is dragging out the timeout > considerably while the really short delay, together with the low number > of max loop iterations suggests that the condition is usually met very > quickly. > > Maybe this would even want a change in the other direction by replacing > the udelay with a cpu_relax to speed up the condition detection and > stall the CPU in device memory loads, instead of having it spin in a > tight inner loop. > OK, will do. Thanks, Andrey Smirnov
