Mathias Nyman writes:
> On 14.12.2016 01:40, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>> ping about [PATCH 1/3, 2/3, 3/3]?
>>
>
> 1/3 and 2/3 will be sent to 4.10 usb-linus after rc1,
> 3/3 maybe to usb-next after that
Thanks.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-u
On 14.12.2016 01:40, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
ping about [PATCH 1/3, 2/3, 3/3]?
1/3 and 2/3 will be sent to 4.10 usb-linus after rc1,
3/3 maybe to usb-next after that
-Mathias
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kern
ping about [PATCH 1/3, 2/3, 3/3]?
OGAWA Hirofumi writes:
> Mathias Nyman writes:
>
>>> - Add xhci_handshake_sleep(), and use it.
>>
>> This seems a but overkill, I'd rather don't have xhci_handshake(),
>> xhci_handshake_sleep() and __xhci_handshake() to maintain.
>
> I agree about it. However,
Mathias Nyman writes:
>> - Add xhci_handshake_sleep(), and use it.
>
> This seems a but overkill, I'd rather don't have xhci_handshake(),
> xhci_handshake_sleep() and __xhci_handshake() to maintain.
I agree about it. However, on other hand, I thought about the
possibility/effort to decreasing us
On 16.11.2016 07:01, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
Now, xhci_abort_cmd_ring() is sleepable. So no reason to use busy loop
anymore.
- Convert udelay(1000) => msleep(1).
Sounds good.
- Add xhci_handshake_sleep(), and use it.
This seems a but overkill, I'd rather don't have xhci_handshake(),
xhci_ha
Now, xhci_abort_cmd_ring() is sleepable. So no reason to use busy loop
anymore.
- Convert udelay(1000) => msleep(1).
- Add xhci_handshake_sleep(), and use it.
As related change, current xhci_handshake() is strange behavior,
E.g. xhci_handshake(ptr, mask, done, 1) does
result = readl(ptr);
