Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:10:36 +0200
From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays
Message-ID: <20161215101036.GW31595@intel.com>
References: <1481776147-23041-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org>
 <87wpf1pnj2.fsf@intel.com>
 <20161215092830.GA25458@osadl.at>
 <87mvfxpli5.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <87mvfxpli5.fsf@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1830
Lines: 39

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:52:34AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote:
> >> > Even on fast systems a 2 microsecond delay is most likely more efficient
> >> > as a busy-wait loop. The overhead of a hrtimer does not seem warranted -
> >> > change this to a udelay(2).
> >> 
> >> Similar concerns as in [1]. We don't need the accuracy of udelay() here,
> >> so this boils down to which is the better use of CPU. We could probably
> >> relax the max delay more if that was helpful. But I'm not immediately
> >> sold on "is most likely more efficient" which sounds like a gut feeling.
> >> 
> >> I'm sorry it's not clear in my other reply that I do appreciate
> >> addressing incorrect/silly use of usleep_range(); I'm just not (yet)
> >> convinced udelay() is the answer.
> >
> > if the delay is not critical and all that is needed 
> > is an assurance that it is greater than X us then 
> > usleep_range is fine with a relaxed limit. 
> > So from what you wrote my patch proposal is wrong - the
> > udelay() is not the way to got.
> > My intent is to get rid of very small usleep_range() cases
> > so if usleep_range(20,50) causes no issues with this driver
> > and does not induce any performance penalty then that would 
> > be the way to go I think.
> 
> Okay, so I looked at the code, and I looked at our spec, and I looked at
> the MIPI D-PHY spec, and I cried a little.
> 
> Long story short, I think usleep_range(10, 50) will be fine.

Note that I really want to see a comment next to every delay like this
documenting the actual hardware requirement, if the delay used by the
code doesn't 100% match it.

-- 
Ville Syrj?l?
Intel OTC