From: "Jean Delvare" <khali@linux-fr.org>
To: adobriyan@mail.ru
Cc: "Aurelien Jarno" <aurelien@aurel32.net>,
"Greg KH" <greg@kroah.com>, "LKML" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"LM Sensors" <sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] I2C: New chip driver: sis5595
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:52:37 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <w2Am1HDp.1107265957.3006340.khali@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200502011612.27220.adobriyan@mail.ru>
Hi Alexey,
> What about making sis5595_update_device() a simple jiffies-related wrapper
> around function that updates "struct sis5595" unconditionally. I'm not sure
> I plugged sis5595_do_update_client right, but you'll get the idea.
Yeah I get the idea, I think I had something similar in mind some times
ago but it failed to please me for the following reasons:
1* It forces a chip update (i.e. full register read) on driver load (or
more precisely on client detection). Since I2C/SMBus accesses are really
slow, it will result in a significant time penalty. As the read values
are only considered valid for 1.5 second (or equivalent duration for the
other drivers), this penalty brings statistically no benefit in return.
2* Each subsequent update (or attempt thereof) will conditionally require
an additional function call, which represents a small time penalty again
(much more than a comparison if I'm not mistaken).
We are only trying to avoid a conditional test and to get rid of a local
variable, and end up with a much slower init and an additional function
call later. The loss seems to overweight the gain, don't you think?
So I wouldn't go that way. To me, the only acceptable simplification is
the initialization of "last_updated" to something which ensures that
the first update attempt will succeed - providing we actually can do
that.
Now I wonder, this is certainly not the only drivers in the kernel which
need to do this, right? Didn't the other ones solve the issue already?
Would be worth taking a look.
Thanks,
--
Jean Delvare
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-01 13:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-02-01 12:20 Alexey Dobriyan
2005-02-01 11:49 ` Jean Delvare
2005-02-01 14:12 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2005-02-01 13:52 ` Jean Delvare [this message]
2005-02-01 14:43 ` Jean Delvare
2005-02-01 16:57 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2005-02-01 16:42 ` Jean Delvare
2005-02-01 12:14 ` Aurelien Jarno
2005-02-01 16:54 ` Greg KH
2005-02-01 17:00 ` Jean Delvare
2005-02-01 16:55 ` Greg KH
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-01-25 22:09 Aurélien Jarno
2005-01-31 18:21 ` Greg KH
2005-02-01 10:11 ` Aurelien Jarno
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=w2Am1HDp.1107265957.3006340.khali@localhost \
--to=khali@linux-fr.org \
--cc=adobriyan@mail.ru \
--cc=aurelien@aurel32.net \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.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
Powered by JetHome