From: Navon John Lukose <navonjohnlukose@gmail.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>,
linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: designware: size the RX FIFO threshold to the queued transfer
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 17:42:49 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260922121249.46057-1-navonjohnlukose@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <arJRC4Ou1LSAMGTs@ashevche-desk.local>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 12:57:31PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Nobody will go with 0 in cpu_dma_latency. It basically kills the idea of CPU
> power states.
Agreed, and the patch does not ask anyone to. Holding it at 0 was how I
measured where the added latency comes from. Mika raised the same point and
there is more detail in that subthread:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260921170456.53354-1-navonjohnlukose@gmail.com/
> If you need a dynamic run-time PM QoS, patch the HID subsystem to
> make those when they want to heavily communicate with the HW.
A QoS request would bound the latency, AFAIK. It would not change that the
controller raises RX_FULL once per received byte, which is what this patch
is about, so I do not think one blocks the other.
> There is also the issue of the interrupt locality.
I am not sure what the i2c driver can do about that. What did you have in
mind?
Worth noting i2c_dw_configure_mode() sets TX_TL to half the FIFO and
RX_TL to 0 on adjacent lines, so a transmit interrupt moves up to half a
FIFO and a receive interrupt moves one byte, which is what this patch
changes.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-22 12:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-19 23:26 Navon John Lukose
2026-09-21 12:05 ` Mika Westerberg
2026-09-21 17:04 ` Navon John Lukose
2026-09-22 6:50 ` Mika Westerberg
2026-09-22 12:12 ` Navon John Lukose
2026-09-22 12:29 ` Mika Westerberg
2026-09-22 13:23 ` Navon John Lukose
2026-09-22 9:57 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-09-22 12:12 ` Navon John Lukose [this message]
2026-09-22 12:48 ` Andy Shevchenko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260922121249.46057-1-navonjohnlukose@gmail.com \
--to=navonjohnlukose@gmail.com \
--cc=andi.shyti@kernel.org \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®