On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 5:01 PM Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> Again, I fail to understand why waiting for a multiple of 20 seconds
> under any circumstances would make any sense. Maybe the idea was
> to divide us by 1000 before entering the second loop ?

Yes, that's very clearly a mistake of mine.

> Looking into the code, there is no need to use udelay() in the first
> place. It should be possible to replace the longer waits with
> usleep_range(). Something like
>                 if (us < some_low_value)        // eg. 0x80
>                         delay(us)

Did you mean udelay here?

>                 else
>                         usleep_range(us, us * 2);
> should do, and at the same time prevent the system from turning
> into a space heater.

The issue would persist with the above if udelay remains in a loop
that gets fully unrolled.  That's while I "peel" the loop into two
loops over different ranges with different bodies.

I think I should iterate in the first loop until the number of `us` is
greater than 1000 (us per ms)(which is less of a magical constant and
doesn't expose internal implementation details of udelay), then start
the second loop (dividing us by 1000).  What do you think, Guenter?

~Nick Desaulniers

Reply via email to