From: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>
To: dedekind1@gmail.com
Cc: srinivas.bakki@nxp.com, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Lei Wen <leiwen@marvell.com>,
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kevin.wells@nxp.com,
Huang Shijie <b32955@freescale.com>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, dwmw2@infradead.org,
Bastian Hecht <hechtb@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MTD: LPC32xx SLC NAND driver
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 15:48:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FB25EAC.10205@antcom.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1337088703.2528.208.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
On 05/15/2012 03:31 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>> As I understand loops_per_jiffy, this loop will take much longer
>> than the 100 ms you defined above?
>
> Not sure about much, but longer. The idea is that this is about
> the error path so if we report -EIO with a slight delay - no
> problem.
Turned out that the condition (FIFO empty) is always true for me.
Keeping the check for safety reasons for now, doing the timeout with
msleep()s which should be (cpu-wise) "social" enough and are
unexpected anyway but do approximate the ms timeout more precisely.
Roland
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: stigge@antcom.de (Roland Stigge)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] MTD: LPC32xx SLC NAND driver
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 15:48:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FB25EAC.10205@antcom.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1337088703.2528.208.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
On 05/15/2012 03:31 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>> As I understand loops_per_jiffy, this loop will take much longer
>> than the 100 ms you defined above?
>
> Not sure about much, but longer. The idea is that this is about
> the error path so if we report -EIO with a slight delay - no
> problem.
Turned out that the condition (FIFO empty) is always true for me.
Keeping the check for safety reasons for now, doing the timeout with
msleep()s which should be (cpu-wise) "social" enough and are
unexpected anyway but do approximate the ms timeout more precisely.
Roland
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>
To: dedekind1@gmail.com
Cc: Huang Shijie <b32955@freescale.com>,
Bastian Hecht <hechtb@googlemail.com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
Lei Wen <leiwen@marvell.com>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org,
dwmw2@infradead.org, kevin.wells@nxp.com, srinivas.bakki@nxp.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MTD: LPC32xx SLC NAND driver
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 15:48:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FB25EAC.10205@antcom.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1337088703.2528.208.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
On 05/15/2012 03:31 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>> As I understand loops_per_jiffy, this loop will take much longer
>> than the 100 ms you defined above?
>
> Not sure about much, but longer. The idea is that this is about
> the error path so if we report -EIO with a slight delay - no
> problem.
Turned out that the condition (FIFO empty) is always true for me.
Keeping the check for safety reasons for now, doing the timeout with
msleep()s which should be (cpu-wise) "social" enough and are
unexpected anyway but do approximate the ms timeout more precisely.
Roland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-15 13:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-12 13:29 [PATCH] MTD: LPC32xx SLC NAND driver Roland Stigge
2012-05-12 13:29 ` Roland Stigge
2012-05-12 13:29 ` Roland Stigge
2012-05-15 7:55 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-15 7:55 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-15 7:55 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-15 8:15 ` Huang Shijie
2012-05-15 8:15 ` Huang Shijie
2012-05-15 8:15 ` Huang Shijie
2012-05-15 8:15 ` Huang Shijie
2012-05-15 13:20 ` Roland Stigge
2012-05-15 13:20 ` Roland Stigge
2012-05-15 13:20 ` Roland Stigge
2012-05-15 13:31 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-15 13:31 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-15 13:31 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-15 13:48 ` Roland Stigge [this message]
2012-05-15 13:48 ` Roland Stigge
2012-05-15 13:48 ` Roland Stigge
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=4FB25EAC.10205@antcom.de \
--to=stigge@antcom.de \
--cc=b32955@freescale.com \
--cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=hechtb@googlemail.com \
--cc=kevin.wells@nxp.com \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=leiwen@marvell.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=srinivas.bakki@nxp.com \
/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.