On 07/31/13 16:44, Timur Tabi wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> What do you do here if jiffies aren't incrementing (i.e >> interrupts are disabled). The time_before() check won't work >> there and it would be nice if we were able to use this in such >> situations. I think powerpc gets around this by reading the >> hardware timer directly? > I believe that jiffies is always a global variable. It should behave > the same on PowerPC as on other architectures. Yes it's global but it doesn't increment while interrupts are off. > > The answer to your question is that you should not use > spin_event_timeout() in interrupt context, because it yields. > If it yields why are we using udelay? Why not usleep_range()? It would be useful to have a variant that worked in interrupt context and it looked like that was almost possible. BTW, couldn't we skip the first patch and just use usecs_to_jiffies()? -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
