Hi Brian,

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 07:45:48PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:16:43PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:

quoted

On 02/17/2015 02:07 PM, Robert Jarzmik wrote:

quoted

It will be Brian choice eventually, but if you say that you will submit that
approach for next cycle, and yours for stable, and that for next you'll convert
mdelay() to msleep(), I'll stop arguing.

How about you push a proper patchset with this alternative (and a nice
cover letter explaining the need for a threaded irq) so we can discuss
properly this new turn?

I think both Maxime's change (polling a new HW bit) and Robert J's
change (move to a threaded IRQ) are good. I'll take another look, but I
expect I'll take Maxime's v4 for the 4.0 cycle, and Robert J's v2 for
4.1 (or will we just jump straight to 5.0? I never know).

That's what I would expect too.

Will I see a patch to convert to msleep() and/or a jiffies timeout
in the near future?

As soon as both patches are merged.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20150224/5b08ae21/attachment-0001.sig>