| Message ID | 1514632107-14698-1-git-send-email-baijiaju1990@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Kalle Valo |
| Headers | show |
On 12/30/2017 05:08 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote: > b43_radio_2057_init_post is not called in an interrupt handler > nor holding a spinlock. > The function mdelay in it can be replaced with msleep, to reduce busy wait. > > Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> checkpatch.pl reports the following warning for this patch: WARNING: msleep < 20ms can sleep for up to 20ms; see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt #26: FILE: drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c:1034: + msleep(2); total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 8 lines checked Have you tested to verify that a sleep as long as 20 ms will not cause problems? The referenced document suggests a usleep_range() call. In general, delay changes should never be proposed without testing. Larry
Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> wrote: > b43_radio_2057_init_post is not called in an interrupt handler > nor holding a spinlock. > The function mdelay in it can be replaced with msleep, to reduce busy wait. > > Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> You submitted an identical patch a week earlier: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10137671/ How is this different? Also always add version number to the patch so that the maintainers can follow the changes easily: https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches#patch_version_missing https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches#changelog_missing
On 01/08/2018 10:21 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> wrote: > >> b43_radio_2057_init_post is not called in an interrupt handler >> nor holding a spinlock. >> The function mdelay in it can be replaced with msleep, to reduce busy wait. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> > > You submitted an identical patch a week earlier: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10137671/ > > How is this different? Also always add version number to the patch so that the > maintainers can follow the changes easily: > > https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches#patch_version_missing > > https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches#changelog_missing I had negative comments on one of those due to the possibility of msleep(2) extending as long as 20 msec. Until the author, or someone else, can test that this is OK, then the mdelay(2) can only be replaced with usleep_range(2000, 3000). NACK for both. Larry
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> writes: > On 01/08/2018 10:21 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> b43_radio_2057_init_post is not called in an interrupt handler >>> nor holding a spinlock. >>> The function mdelay in it can be replaced with msleep, to reduce busy wait. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> >> >> You submitted an identical patch a week earlier: >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10137671/ >> >> How is this different? Also always add version number to the patch so that the >> maintainers can follow the changes easily: >> >> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches#patch_version_missing >> >> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches#changelog_missing > > I had negative comments on one of those due to the possibility of > msleep(2) extending as long as 20 msec. Until the author, or someone > else, can test that this is OK, then the mdelay(2) can only be > replaced with usleep_range(2000, 3000). > > NACK for both. Ok, patches dropped.
On 2018/1/9 0:31, Larry Finger wrote: > On 01/08/2018 10:21 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> b43_radio_2057_init_post is not called in an interrupt handler >>> nor holding a spinlock. >>> The function mdelay in it can be replaced with msleep, to reduce >>> busy wait. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> >> >> You submitted an identical patch a week earlier: >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10137671/ >> >> How is this different? Also always add version number to the patch so >> that the >> maintainers can follow the changes easily: >> >> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches#patch_version_missing >> >> >> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches#changelog_missing >> > > I had negative comments on one of those due to the possibility of > msleep(2) extending as long as 20 msec. Until the author, or someone > else, can test that this is OK, then the mdelay(2) can only be > replaced with usleep_range(2000, 3000). > > NACK for both. > > Larry > Sorry for my mistake. I have sent a patch v2 using usleep_range(2000, 3000), and you can have a look :) Thanks, Jia-Ju Bai
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c index a5557d7..5bc838e 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c @@ -1031,7 +1031,7 @@ static void b43_radio_2057_init_post(struct b43_wldev *dev) b43_radio_set(dev, R2057_RFPLL_MISC_CAL_RESETN, 0x78); b43_radio_set(dev, R2057_XTAL_CONFIG2, 0x80); - mdelay(2); + msleep(2); b43_radio_mask(dev, R2057_RFPLL_MISC_CAL_RESETN, ~0x78); b43_radio_mask(dev, R2057_XTAL_CONFIG2, ~0x80);
b43_radio_2057_init_post is not called in an interrupt handler nor holding a spinlock. The function mdelay in it can be replaced with msleep, to reduce busy wait. Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> --- drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)