From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: LW@KARO-electronics.de (=?utf-8?Q?Lothar_Wa=C3=9Fmann?=) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:43:04 +0200 Subject: [rtc-linux] [PATCH v3] rtc: snvs: add Freescale rtc-snvs driver In-Reply-To: <20120817061439.GF24242@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> References: <1342164663-31351-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <20120814170300.8f97afcf.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20120815141606.GA2457@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <20120815133221.ca88d4ba.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20524.43620.36859.792122@ipc1.ka-ro> <20120817061439.GF24242@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> Message-ID: <20527.14712.202172.863404@ipc1.ka-ro> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, Shawn Guo writes: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:08:04AM +0200, Lothar Wa?mann wrote: > > Why not read the register once more in case of a timeout, which > > would guarantee to have a current view of the register contents no > > matter how long the process may have been descheduled before: > > > > [...] > > static int snvs_rtc_enable_done(int enable, void __iomem *addr) > > { > > u32 lpcr = readl(addr + SNVS_LPCR); > > > > return !!enable ^ !(lpcr & SNVS_LPCR_SRTC_ENV); > > } > > [...] > > while (1) { > > if (svns_rtc_enable_done(enable, data->ioaddr)) > > break; > > > > if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { > > if (!svns_rtc_enable_done(enable, data->ioaddr)) > > return -ETIMEDOUT; > > } > > } > > > I'm fine with this solution. Can you send a formal patch for this? > Then we will have two incremental patches (I already sent the fixed > times loop one) for Andrew to choose one. > What should I base this patch on? Lothar Wa?mann -- ___________________________________________________________ Ka-Ro electronics GmbH | Pascalstra?e 22 | D - 52076 Aachen Phone: +49 2408 1402-0 | Fax: +49 2408 1402-10 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Matthias Kaussen Handelsregistereintrag: Amtsgericht Aachen, HRB 4996 www.karo-electronics.de | info at karo-electronics.de ___________________________________________________________