| Message ID | iwlwifi.20210115130253.621c948b1fad.I3ee9f4bc4e74a0c9125d42fb7c35cd80df4698a1@changeid |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | iwlwifi: fixes intended for v5.10 2020-12-02 | expand |
Luca Coelho <luca@coelho.fi> writes: > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> > > There's no reason to use ktime_get() since we don't need any better > precision than jiffies, and since we no longer disable interrupts > around this code (when grabbing NIC access), jiffies will work fine. > Use jiffies instead of ktime_get(). > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com> What bug does this fix? After reading the commit log to me this looks like more like cleanup and is better for -next. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> writes: > Luca Coelho <luca@coelho.fi> writes: > >> From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> >> >> There's no reason to use ktime_get() since we don't need any better >> precision than jiffies, and since we no longer disable interrupts >> around this code (when grabbing NIC access), jiffies will work fine. >> Use jiffies instead of ktime_get(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com> > > What bug does this fix? After reading the commit log to me this looks > like more like cleanup and is better for -next. Ah, this is a dependency for patch 12. I'll mention this in the commit log, but please correct me if I have misunderstood. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
On Mon, 2021-01-18 at 17:18 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> writes: > > > Luca Coelho <luca@coelho.fi> writes: > > > > > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> > > > > > > There's no reason to use ktime_get() since we don't need any better > > > precision than jiffies, and since we no longer disable interrupts > > > around this code (when grabbing NIC access), jiffies will work fine. > > > Use jiffies instead of ktime_get(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com> > > > > What bug does this fix? After reading the commit log to me this looks > > like more like cleanup and is better for -next. > > Ah, this is a dependency for patch 12. I'll mention this in the commit > log, but please correct me if I have misunderstood. Yes, you're right! It's a dependency and I thought it would be simpler and cause less conflicts if I just took it too instead of sending them via different trees. -- Cheers, Luca.
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/trans.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/trans.c index 285e0d586021..e3760c41b31e 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/trans.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/trans.c @@ -2107,7 +2107,7 @@ static int iwl_trans_pcie_read_mem(struct iwl_trans *trans, u32 addr, while (offs < dwords) { /* limit the time we spin here under lock to 1/2s */ - ktime_t timeout = ktime_add_us(ktime_get(), 500 * USEC_PER_MSEC); + unsigned long end = jiffies + HZ / 2; if (iwl_trans_grab_nic_access(trans, &flags)) { iwl_write32(trans, HBUS_TARG_MEM_RADDR, @@ -2118,11 +2118,7 @@ static int iwl_trans_pcie_read_mem(struct iwl_trans *trans, u32 addr, HBUS_TARG_MEM_RDAT); offs++; - /* calling ktime_get is expensive so - * do it once in 128 reads - */ - if (offs % 128 == 0 && ktime_after(ktime_get(), - timeout)) + if (time_after(jiffies, end)) break; } iwl_trans_release_nic_access(trans, &flags);