On Tuesday 27 June 2006 04:27, Larry Finger wrote:

Jeff Garzik wrote:

quoted

John W. Linville wrote:

quoted

+    assert(bcm->mac_suspended >= 0);
+    if (bcm->mac_suspended == 0) {
+        bcm43xx_power_saving_ctl_bits(bcm, -1, 1);
+        bcm43xx_write32(bcm, BCM43xx_MMIO_STATUS_BITFIELD,
+                        bcm43xx_read32(bcm, 
BCM43xx_MMIO_STATUS_BITFIELD)
+                & ~BCM43xx_SBF_MAC_ENABLED);
+        bcm43xx_read32(bcm, BCM43xx_MMIO_GEN_IRQ_REASON); /* dummy 
read */
+        for (i = 100000; i; i--) {
+            tmp = bcm43xx_read32(bcm, BCM43xx_MMIO_GEN_IRQ_REASON);
+            if (tmp & BCM43xx_IRQ_READY)
+                goto out;
+            udelay(10);
+        }
+        printkl(KERN_ERR PFX "MAC suspend failed\n");
     }

NAK this super-long delay...  should be done in a workqueue, looks like?

ACK everything else.

That delay was set to try to accommodate my interface when it refused to suspend the MAC, which 
resulted in transmit errors. That problem has since been cured by reworking the periodic work 
handlers - thus such a long delay should not be needed. The original spec from the clean-room group 
was a delay loop of 1000. I'm currently testing that value now. If it passes the test, would a for 
(i=1000; i; i--) be acceptable?

Short: Don't touch it. Fullstop.

Long: The delay will _never_ be exhausted. Actually the for-counter
is only there to not lock up the machine, if there is a Bug in the
driver. (__much__ easier debugging).
The loop will only iterate a few times, typically.
Actually, _if_ we want to change something, we should do this:

for (i = 1000000; i; i--) {
	...
	udelay(1);
}

(max loop multiplied by 10, delay value divided by 10).
This will shorten the whole delay by a few usecs (up to 10).
I will send a patch for this, if it is desired.

But lowering the loop counter value is NACKed by me,
because it simply does not make sense.

-- 
Greetings Michael.