Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1377274 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-12 23:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-04-12 23:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH v3] i2c: mediatek: i2c multi transfer optimization Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2016-04-12 23:20 +0200
| From | Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 23:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] i2c: mediatek: i2c multi transfer optimization |
| Message-ID | <rndT7-5HZ-71@gated-at.bofh.it> |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi, thanks for the submission! On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 02:23:51AM +0800, Liguo Zhang wrote: > Signal complete() in the i2c irq handler after one transfer done, > and then wait_for_completion_timeout() will return, this procedure > may cost much time, so only signal complete() when the entire > transaction has been completed, it will reduce the entire transaction > time. > > Signed-off-by: Liguo Zhang <liguo.zhang@mediatek.com> I wonder. You have less context switches, yes. On the other hand, you likely have bigger interrupt latency because you do more stuff in the interrupt handler. Is it really a gain in the end? Regards, Wolfram
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web