From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] Give up on edid retries when i2c tells us that bus is not there Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:13:55 +0200 Message-ID: <20111020151355.306eecc4@endymion.delvare> References: <1318857150-2117-1-git-send-email-eugeni.dodonov@intel.com> <1318857150-2117-2-git-send-email-eugeni.dodonov@intel.com> <20111018151451.280f8f18@endymion.delvare> <20111020143339.59270702@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from services.gcu-squad.org (zone0.gcu-squad.org [212.85.147.21]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C339EF0D for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 06:14:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20111020143339.59270702@endymion.delvare> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Eugeni Dodonov Cc: Michael Buesch , dri-devel List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:33:39 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > That being said, even then the whole probe sequence shouldn't exceed > 10 ms, which I wouldn't expect a user to notice. The user-reported 4 > second delay when running xrandr can't be caused by this. 4 seconds for > 15 attempts is 250 ms per attempt, this looks like a timeout due to > non-functional bus, not a nack. Not that 250 ms is 1 jiffy for HZ=250, D'oh. Today is not my day, I can't believe I wrote this :/ 1 jiffy is obviously 4 ms only at HZ=250. So I can't explain why it is taking so much time on the reporter's machine. > which I guess was what the reporting user was running. So even with > your patch, there's still 750 ms to wait, I don't think this is > acceptable. You really have to fix that I2C bus or skip probing it. This conclusion probably still holds. -- Jean Delvare