On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 07:42:38AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > ...but I guess you're saying that you don't want to guarantee that the > SPI core will happen to have this thread sitting around in the future > so you'd rather add the extra complexity to cros_ec so the core can > evolve more freely? We need something to support spi_async() but what you're asking for is fairly specific implementation details about how things are currently structured, and we do need to be able to continue to make improvements for users who are interested in performance. Ensuring that the calling context is also less likely to be preempted is going to make it much less likely that any other work is going to cause some timing change that creates problems for you.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
