From: Jia-Ju Bai <hidden> Date: 2018-01-09 01:36:31
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 usleep_range,
to reduce busy wait.
Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <redacted>
---
v2:
* Replace mdelay with usleep_range, instead of msleep in v1.
Thank Larry for good advice.
---
drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 09:40:06AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
quoted hunk
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 usleep_range,
to reduce busy wait.
Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <redacted>
---
v2:
* Replace mdelay with usleep_range, instead of msleep in v1.
Thank Larry for good advice.
---
drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: Jia-Ju Bai <hidden> Date: 2018-01-09 08:39:58
On 2018/1/9 16:35, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 09:40:06AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
quoted
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 usleep_range,
to reduce busy wait.
Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <redacted>
---
v2:
* Replace mdelay with usleep_range, instead of msleep in v1.
Thank Larry for good advice.
---
drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Where did 3000 come from? Are you sure about that?
I am not very sure, and I use it according to Larry's message:
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).
From: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> Date: 2018-01-09 09:07:35
On 1/9/2018 9:39 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
On 2018/1/9 16:35, Greg KH wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 09:40:06AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
quoted
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 usleep_range,
to reduce busy wait.
Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <redacted>
---
v2:
* Replace mdelay with usleep_range, instead of msleep in v1.
Thank Larry for good advice.
---
drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Where did 3000 come from? Are you sure about that?
I am not very sure, and I use it according to Larry's message:
Hi Jia-Ju Bai,
The duration here is for settling the registers so hardware can pick it
up. Right after this they are written again. Now this is during
initialization of the radio so not time critical, but probably anything
in the range of 2000..3000 would also have been fine.
Regards,
Arend
From: Jia-Ju Bai <hidden> Date: 2018-01-09 09:48:30
On 2018/1/9 17:07, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 1/9/2018 9:39 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
quoted
On 2018/1/9 16:35, Greg KH wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 09:40:06AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
quoted
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 usleep_range,
to reduce busy wait.
Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <redacted>
---
v2:
* Replace mdelay with usleep_range, instead of msleep in v1.
Thank Larry for good advice.
---
drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Where did 3000 come from? Are you sure about that?
I am not very sure, and I use it according to Larry's message:
Hi Jia-Ju Bai,
The duration here is for settling the registers so hardware can pick
it up. Right after this they are written again. Now this is during
initialization of the radio so not time critical, but probably
anything in the range of 2000..3000 would also have been fine.
Hi Arend,
Thanks for your detailed explanation :)
So I think usleep_range(2000, 3000) is okay.
Thanks,
Jia-Ju Bai
From: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> Date: 2018-01-09 11:12:04
On 1/9/2018 10:47 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
On 2018/1/9 17:07, Arend van Spriel wrote:
quoted
On 1/9/2018 9:39 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
quoted
On 2018/1/9 16:35, Greg KH wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 09:40:06AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
quoted
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 usleep_range,
to reduce busy wait.
Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <redacted>
---
v2:
* Replace mdelay with usleep_range, instead of msleep in v1.
Thank Larry for good advice.
---
drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Where did 3000 come from? Are you sure about that?
I am not very sure, and I use it according to Larry's message:
Hi Jia-Ju Bai,
The duration here is for settling the registers so hardware can pick
it up. Right after this they are written again. Now this is during
initialization of the radio so not time critical, but probably
anything in the range of 2000..3000 would also have been fine.
Hi Arend,
Thanks for your detailed explanation :)
So I think usleep_range(2000, 3000) is okay.
From: Larry Finger <hidden> Date: 2018-01-09 16:50:03
On 01/08/2018 07:40 PM, 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 usleep_range,
to reduce busy wait.
Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <redacted>
---
v2:
* Replace mdelay with usleep_range, instead of msleep in v1.
Thank Larry for good advice.
---
I agree that a sleep of 2-3 ms should be OK here.
Acked-by: Larry Finger <redacted>
Larry
From: Kalle Valo <hidden> Date: 2018-01-11 19:54:33
Jia-Ju Bai [off-list ref] 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 usleep_range,
to reduce busy wait.
Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <redacted>
Acked-by: Larry Finger <redacted>