Re: [PATCH 3/3] xhci: Remove busy loop from xhci_abort_cmd_ring()

Mathias Nyman writes: > On 14.12.2016 01:40, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: >> ping about [PATCH 1/3, 2/3, 3/3]? >> > > 1/3 and 2/3 will be sent to 4.10 usb-linus after rc1, > 3/3 maybe to usb-next after that Thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi -- To

Re: [PATCH 3/3] xhci: Remove busy loop from xhci_abort_cmd_ring()

On 14.12.2016 01:40, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: ping about [PATCH 1/3, 2/3, 3/3]? 1/3 and 2/3 will be sent to 4.10 usb-linus after rc1, 3/3 maybe to usb-next after that -Mathias -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to

Re: [PATCH 3/3] xhci: Remove busy loop from xhci_abort_cmd_ring()

ping about [PATCH 1/3, 2/3, 3/3]? OGAWA Hirofumi writes: > Mathias Nyman writes: > >>> - Add xhci_handshake_sleep(), and use it. >> >> This seems a but overkill, I'd rather don't have xhci_handshake(), >> xhci_handshake_sleep() and

Re: [PATCH 3/3] xhci: Remove busy loop from xhci_abort_cmd_ring()

Mathias Nyman writes: >> - Add xhci_handshake_sleep(), and use it. > > This seems a but overkill, I'd rather don't have xhci_handshake(), > xhci_handshake_sleep() and __xhci_handshake() to maintain. I agree about it. However, on other hand, I thought about the

Re: [PATCH 3/3] xhci: Remove busy loop from xhci_abort_cmd_ring()

On 16.11.2016 07:01, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: Now, xhci_abort_cmd_ring() is sleepable. So no reason to use busy loop anymore. - Convert udelay(1000) => msleep(1). Sounds good. - Add xhci_handshake_sleep(), and use it. This seems a but overkill, I'd rather don't have xhci_handshake(),

[PATCH 3/3] xhci: Remove busy loop from xhci_abort_cmd_ring()

Now, xhci_abort_cmd_ring() is sleepable. So no reason to use busy loop anymore. - Convert udelay(1000) => msleep(1). - Add xhci_handshake_sleep(), and use it. As related change, current xhci_handshake() is strange behavior, E.g. xhci_handshake(ptr, mask, done, 1) does result = readl(ptr);