lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] e1000e: changed some expensive calls of udelay to usleep_range
On Thu 2017-09-07 22:19:47, Brown, Aaron F wrote:
> > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org] On
> > Behalf Of Pavel Machek
> > Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 9:26 AM
> > To: Matthew Tan <matthew.tan_1@nxp.com>
> > Cc: michael.kardonik@nxp.com; Williams, Mitch A
> > <mitch.a.williams@intel.com>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> > john.ronciak@intel.com; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org;
> > netdev@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] e1000e: changed some expensive calls
> > of udelay to usleep_range
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > > @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ s32 e1000e_read_phy_reg_mdic(struct e1000_hw
> > *hw, u32 offset, u16 *data)
> > > * reading duplicate data in the next MDIC transaction.
> > > */
> > > if (hw->mac.type == e1000_pch2lan)
> > > - udelay(100);
> > > + usleep_range(90, 100);
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> >
> > Can you explain why shortening the delay is acceptable here?
>
> Maybe it's not.
>
> This patch is causing speed / duplex tests to fail on several of my test systems. Specifically a Lenova laptop with an 82577 and a NUC with an i218 (though that does not mean it is limited to those or that it's not related to the individual link partner.)
>

Ok, this should be quite easy to verify -- just adjust all the ranges
to be >= original ones.

Thanks,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-08 11:28    [W:0.072 / U:2.980 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site