On 23. 4. 21. 00:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 19/04/2023 13:13, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>> On 23. 4. 19. 17:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 19/04/2023 08:06, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>>>> Adds cpu_relax() to prevent long busy-wait.
>>> How cpu_relax prevents long waiting?
>> As I know, cpu_relax() can be converted to yield. This can prevent
>> excessive use of the CPU in busy-loop.
> That's ok, you just wrote that it will prevent long waiting, so I assume
> it will shorten the wait time.
>
>> I'll replace poor sentence like below in v3.
>>
>> ("Adds cpu_relax() to allow CPU relaxation in busy-loop")
>>
>>>> There is busy-wait loop to check data transfer completion in polling mode.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaewon Kim<jaewon02.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c | 1 +
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
>>>> index 273aa02322d9..886722fb40ea 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
>>>> @@ -568,6 +568,7 @@ static int s3c64xx_wait_for_pio(struct s3c64xx_spi_driver_data *sdd,
>>>>
>>>> val = msecs_to_loops(ms);
>>>> do {
>>>> + cpu_relax();
>>> Shouldn't this be just readl_poll_timeout()? Or the syntax would be too
>>> complicated?
>> I think we can replace this while() loop to readl_poll_timeout().
>>
>> However, we should use 0 value as 'delay_us' parameter. Because delay
>> can affect throughput.
>>
>>
>> My purpose is add relax to this busy-loop.
>>
>> we cannot give relax if we change to readl_poll_timeout().
> readl_poll_timeout() will know to do the best. You do not need to add
> cpu_relax there.
Okay, I will change it to readl_poll_timeout()
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
>
Thanks
Jaewon Kim
