From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752424AbbK2K0D (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 29 Nov 2015 05:26:03 -0500
Received: from kvm5.telegraphics.com.au ([98.124.60.144]:46373 "EHLO
	kvm5.telegraphics.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751602AbbK2KZ7 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 29 Nov 2015 05:25:59 -0500
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 21:25:53 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
cc: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@odin.com>,
        Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>,
        Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org>,
        scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/71] ncr5380: Eliminate selecting state
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdWt5Vf=iOg0BcqTwE-Md75dTmygVOmw45MXVhKuDDQXxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1511292106140.32336@nippy.intranet>
References: <20151118083455.331768508@telegraphics.com.au> <201511252259.26792.linux@rainbow-software.org> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1511261130120.12333@nippy.intranet> <201511262035.40920.linux@rainbow-software.org> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1511270930280.723@nippy.intranet>
 <CAMuHMdWt5Vf=iOg0BcqTwE-Md75dTmygVOmw45MXVhKuDDQXxA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On Sun, 29 Nov 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> This still heavily depends on the processing time spent in 
> NCR5380_read(). You should never use a value derived from 
> loops_per_jiffy for a non-empty loop,

Sure but the time-out condition isn't supposed to be precise.
Plus/minus a jiffy is no problem. Plus/minus a second is no good.

> as it may take much longer. Always compare with an maximum end time 
> instead.

That can't work with interrupts disabled, which was the problem I was 
trying to solve by use of loops_per_jiffy.

NCR5380_poll_politely() in mainline doesn't work with interrupts disabled 
either, hence patch 21.

> 
> E.g.:
> 
>         end = jiffies + 2;        /* 1 jiffie + 1 safeguard */
>         do {
>                  if ((NCR5380_read(reg1) & bit1) == val1)
>                          return 0;
>                  cpu_relax();
>         } while (time_before(jiffies, end);
> 
> And a similar loop for "Busy-wait for up to 20 ms".

Interrupts may be disabled during that loop also. Please refer to (and/or 
respond to) patch 21, "ncr5380: Sleep when polling, if possible", in which 
these changes were made.

-- 

> 
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
>