From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
To: Ivan Djelic <ivan.djelic@parrot.com>
Cc: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
"linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
Jesper Nilsson <jespern@axis.com>,
Johan Gunnarsson <johan.gunnarsson@axis.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mtd: nand: use hrtimer to measure timeout in nand_wait{_ready, }
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 21:21:26 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1337710886.1977.6.camel@koala> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120522171023.GA2372@parrot.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1075 bytes --]
On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 19:10 +0200, Ivan Djelic wrote:
> Current NAND devices require approximately 1-3 ms per block erase, and 100-200 us per page program operation.
> But I think this timeout is only useful to detect and recover from broken hardware: IMHO there is no point in
> trying to "optimize" the timeout delay to 20ms or 400ms depending on which operation is being done (program or erase).
>
> Why not simplify and just use a single 1s (1000ms) timeout ?
I have many things on my plate now so my answers are are sloppy - I
spent 1 minute or less looking at the code. But I thought that this
timeout is important for the the case when 'chip->device_ready' is NULL.
This is why I wanted to get rid of that case, and then the timeout would
only become about detecting the forever loops. And this is exactly what
I meant by saying that I have further idea on improving that without
hrtimer - just have one single 1 second timeout. We indeed do not have
to be precise for the errors detection.
Oops, SIGBABY.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-22 18:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-21 8:42 [PATCH 0/2] use hrtimer in nand_wait Johan Gunnarsson
2012-05-21 8:42 ` [PATCH 1/2] mtd: nand: panic_nand_wait expects timeout in ms Johan Gunnarsson
2012-05-21 8:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] mtd: nand: use hrtimer to measure timeout in nand_wait{_ready, } Johan Gunnarsson
2012-05-22 7:53 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-22 8:52 ` Johan Gunnarsson
2012-05-22 10:25 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-22 14:24 ` Johan Gunnarsson
2012-05-22 17:10 ` Ivan Djelic
2012-05-22 18:21 ` Artem Bityutskiy [this message]
2012-05-23 6:39 ` Brian Norris
2012-05-23 8:36 ` Ivan Djelic
2012-05-23 8:14 ` Johan Gunnarsson
2012-05-22 7:23 ` [PATCH 0/2] use hrtimer in nand_wait Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-22 8:37 ` Johan Gunnarsson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1337710886.1977.6.camel@koala \
--to=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=ivan.djelic@parrot.com \
--cc=jespern@axis.com \
--cc=johan.gunnarsson@axis.com \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.