-----snippet----
>>>>
>>>> && attemp)
>>>>
>>>>> + udelay(1);
>>>>
>>>> i guess cpu_relax() is better here.
>> I guess cpu_relax is not required because this part of code is called only
>> from
>> board file during boot-up. Hence this would be the only code to be
>> executed.
What is your opinion on this?
>>>>
>>>>> + attempt++;
>>>>>
>>>>> attempt--;
>>>>>
>>>>cant we improve this code as following:
>>>{
>>> u8 attempts = 25;
>>> /* Software Reset of GPIO module */
>>> __raw_writel(0x0002, bank->base
>>> + OMAP24XX_GPIO_SYSCONFIG);
>>> /* wait for reset to be done */
>>> while (((__raw_readl(bank->base +
>>> OMAP24XX_GPIO_SYSSTATUS) & 0x1) == 0)
>>> && attempts) {
>>> cpu_relax();
>>> if (attempts % 5)
>>> udelay(1);
>>> attempts--;
>>> }
>>>
>>>allows the kernel to do somethin else while we also ensure we have a 5
>>>usec guarenteed delay before giving up..
>> Doesn't modulo operation cost more in terms of performance? Any specific
>> reason for specific 5 microseconds?
>You could replace it with >> operator if you like and use 2^x multiples..
>I am just sticking 5 us there based on your original code..
>so the same logic over here I suppose.. unless I missed something?
I was using attempts as 5, as my intension was to attempt only 5 times and not
in terms of usec as I could not find any details in any document for maximum
time for the bit to get set/reset. According to your code, it would attempt to
read
the register 25 times with a delay of 5 microseconds min during worst case
scenario.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
