lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH V3] spi: spi-geni-qcom: Add SPI driver support for GENI based QUP
Hi,

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:00 AM, <dkota@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> In v2, I said:
>>
>>> I'm not sure where to comment about this, so adding it to the end:
>>>
>>> Between v1 and v2 you totally removed all the locking. Presumably
>>> this is because you didn't want to hold the lock in
>>> handle_fifo_timeout() while waiting for the completion. IMO taking
>>> the lock out was the wrong thing to do. You should keep it, but just
>>> drop the lock before wait_for_completion_timeout() and add it back
>>> afterwards. Specifically you _don't_ want the IRQ and timeout code
>>> stomping on each other.
>>
>>
>> ...but still no spinlock?
>
> I see there is no need of taking the spinlock as timeout will be handled
> after the calculated time as per data size and speed.
> There is 99.9% less chances of interrupt during the timeout handler.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/1201081

The thing is, we want it to be 100% reliable, not 99.9% reliable. Is
it somehow wrong to add the spinlock? ...or are you noticing
performance problems with the spinlock there? It's just nice not to
have to think about it.

-Doug

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-07 18:26    [W:0.083 / U:1.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site