On Tue, Oct 07 2014 at 06:47:59 PM, Mitchel Humpherys <mitch...@codeaurora.org>
wrote:
>>> +#define readl_poll_timeout_atomic(addr, val, cond, max_reads,
>>> time_between_us) \
>>> +({ \
>>> + int count; \
>>> + for (count = (max_reads); count > 0; count--) { \
>>> + (val) = readl(addr); \
>>> + if (cond) \
>>> + break; \
>>> + udelay(time_between_us); \
>>> + } \
>>> + (cond) ? 0 : -ETIMEDOUT; \
>>> +})
>>
>> udelay has a large variability, I think it would be better to also use
>> ktime_compare here and make the interface the same as the other one.
>> You might want to add a warning if someone tries to pass more than a few
>> microseconds as the timeout.
>
> Sounds good, will update in v5.
Except I'll probably hold off on adding a warning about udelay since
udelay already includes a "warning" (a compile error, actually) when
exceedingly large delays are requested.
-Mitch
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
