David Brownell wrote:
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 11:17 pm, Vitaly Wool wrote:
Mark Underwood wrote:
However, there also are some advantages of our core compared to David's I'd like to mention
- it can be compiled as a module
So can David's. You can use BIOS tables in which case you must compile the SPI core into the
kernel but you can also use spi_new_device which allows the SPI core to be built as a module (and
is how I am using it).
You limit the functionality, so it's not the case.
As noted in my comparison of last week (you're still ignoring that):
- Mine lets board-specific device tables be declared in the
relevant arch_setup() thing (board-*.c). Both frameworks allow
later board specific code to dynamically declare the devices,
with binary (Dave's) or parsed-text (Dmitry's) descriptions.
What Mark said was that in this case he used the "late" init. You seem
to be saying he's not allowed to do that. Which is nonsense; there are
distinct mechanisms for the good reason that "late" init doesn't work
so well without dynamic discovery ... which SPI itself doesn't support.
Hence the need for board-specific "this hardware exists" tables.
Can you please clarify what you mean here? Better even if Mark describes
what he does. The ideal situation would be if he posted a patch.
If there's more than one SPI controller onboard, spi_write_then_read
will serialize the transfers ...
Which, as has been pointed out, would be a trivial thing to fix
if anyone were actually to have a problem. Sure it'd incur the
cost of a kmalloc on at least some paths -- serializing in the
slab layer instead! -- but that's one price of using convenience
helpers not performance oriented calls.
Well, most of the drivers will use that helpers I guess.
The thing however is that if you try to implement this in a "clean" way
you will come to a sport of framework we've developed for memeory
allocations, as I've saild previously.
Moreover, if, say, two
kernel threads with different priorities are working with two SPI
controllers respectively *priority inversion* will happen.
That characteristic being inherited from semaphores (or were they
updated with RT_PREEMPT?), and being in common with most I/O queues
in the system. Not something to blame on any line of code I wrote.
I think they weren't.
The whole thing doesn't seem thought out nicely to me. The solution
exists, of course, and that is -- do somthing similar to what we did there.
Oh, and I noticed a priority inversion in your API which shows
up with one SPI controller managing two devices. Whoops! I'd
far rather have such inversions be implementation artifacts; it's
easy to patch an implementation, hard to change all API users.
Not sure if I understood you. Can you please describe the situation when
this prio inversion happens?
What priorities are you talking about? One controller is one thread, so
it's _one_ priority, consequently there's nothing to invert.
As for your second statement, I don't argue. The fact however is that if
you implement the mehtod which corrects priority inverstion problems
your core will not be either so lightweight or so flexible. :)
- it's more adapted for use in real-time environments
- it's not so lightweight, but it leaves less effort for the bus driver developer.
But also less flexibility. A core layer shouldn't _force_ a policy
Nope, it's just a default policy.
One that every driver pays the price for. Allocating a task even
when it doesn't need it; every call going through a midlayer that
wants to take over queue management policy; and more. (Unless you
made a big un-remarked change in a patch you called "refresh"...)
It's not obvious that this price is high.
Anyway, it's a point I should agree with; this functionality better be a
config option. Feel free to submit a patch, as you like to say.
on a bus driver. I am currently developing an adapter driver for David's system and I wouldn't say
that the core is making me do things I think the core should do. Please could you provide examples
of where you think Davids SPI core requires 'effort'.
Main are
- the need to call 'complete' in controller driver
So you think it's better to have consistent semantics be optional?
That seems to be the notion behind your spi_transfer() call, which
can't decide whether it's going to be synchronous or asynchronous.
Instead, it decided to be error prone and be both. :)
Not sure if I understood you here, sorry.
- the need to implement policy in controller driver
The "policy" in question is something that sometimes needs to
be board-specific -- priority to THAT device, synch with THIS
external signal, etc -- which is why I see it as a drawback
that you insist the core implement one policy.
Again, the policy can be overridden.
Vitaly
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
