Messages in this thread | | | From | John Ogness <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv3 4/5] mtd: mxc_nand fixups | Date | Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:10:08 +0200 |
| |
On 2010-06-23, Ivo Clarysse <ivo.clarysse@gmail.com> wrote: > But is it OK to use a regular (non-volatile) variable to communicate > between interrupt context and the non-interrupt context ?
In this case, yes.
> My original patch for i.MX21 used completions instead: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2010-April/012694.html
Ah. It seems you've been through all this before. I wish I had noticed that thread before. I will need to check more carefully in the future.
Yes, your original patch achieves the exact same thing. Whether we use wait_event() with a flag or wait_completion() really is the same thing. So I guess Sascha can decide what we should do there.
What I like about your original patch is that only the i.MX21 has the cost of constantly enabling/disabling the irq line. It adds 5 cpu_is_mx21() blocks to the code, but will lead to less work for the CPU on non-i.MX21 boards.
John Ogness
| |