On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:34:00AM +, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:20:01PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Ville Syrjälä
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:52:34AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire w
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:20:01PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Ville Syrjälä
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:52:34AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, De
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:27:59AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:25:19AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Gu
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:52:34AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>> >> > Even on fast s
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:52:34AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> >> > Even on fast systems a 2 microsecond delay is most likely more ef
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>> > Even on fast systems a 2 microsecond delay is most likely more efficient
>> > as a busy-wait loop. The overhead of a hrtimer does not
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> Even on fast systems a 2 microsecond delay is most likely more efficient
> as a busy-wait loop. The overhead of a hrtimer does not seem warranted -
> change this to a udelay(2).
Similar concerns as in [1]. We don't need the accuracy of udelay() here
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:27:59AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:25:19AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > > > Even on fast systems a 2 microsecond delay is
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:20:01PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:52:34AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> >
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:25:19AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > > Even on fast systems a 2 microsecond delay is most likely more efficient
> > > as a busy-wait loop. The overhead of
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > Even on fast systems a 2 microsecond delay is most likely more efficient
> > as a busy-wait loop. The overhead of a hrtimer does not seem warranted -
> > change this to a udelay(2).
>
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > Even on fast systems a 2 microsecond delay is most likely more efficient
> > as a busy-wait loop. The overhead of a hrtimer does not seem warranted -
> > change this to a udelay(2).
>
Even on fast systems a 2 microsecond delay is most likely more efficient
as a busy-wait loop. The overhead of a hrtimer does not seem warranted -
change this to a udelay(2).
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire
---
Problem found by coccinelle:
Patch was compile tested with: x86_64_defconfig (implie
13 matches
Mail list logo
