From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com (Troy Kisky) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 16:17:41 -0700 Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/1] pci-imx6: add speed change timeout message In-Reply-To: <201505212319.47974.marex@denx.de> References: <1432233345-10160-1-git-send-email-troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com> <201505212319.47974.marex@denx.de> Message-ID: <555E6795.6090009@boundarydevices.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 5/21/2015 2:19 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 08:35:45 PM, Troy Kisky wrote: >> Currently, the timeout is never detected as count >> has a value of -1 if a timeout happens, but the code is checking >> for 0. >> >> Signed-off-by: Troy Kisky >> >> --- >> >> This patch breaks pcie for imx6sx as my board always times out. >> So, if someone could check this on an imx6sx I'd appreciate it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Troy Kisky >> --- >> drivers/pci/host/pci-imx6.c | 18 ++++++++++-------- >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pci-imx6.c b/drivers/pci/host/pci-imx6.c >> index fdb9536..51be92c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pci-imx6.c >> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pci-imx6.c >> @@ -398,20 +398,22 @@ static int imx6_pcie_start_link(struct pcie_port *pp) >> writel(tmp, pp->dbi_base + PCIE_LINK_WIDTH_SPEED_CONTROL); >> >> count = 200; >> - while (count--) { > > Uh, wouldn't "while (--count)" fix this as well, with a smaller patch? > > Best regards, > Marek Vasut > Yes, but you'd have an unnecessary usleep_range (no check for finished after it) if a timeout happens. Troy