From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a new-style driver for most I2C EEPROMs Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:17:46 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1207914198-8561-1-git-send-email-w.sang@pengutronix.de> <20080414143925.31b55b39@hyperion.delvare> <200804140857.33732.david-b@pacbell.net> <200804171417.23753.david-b@pacbell.net> <20080418103149.GA4245@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org To: i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Trent Piepho wrote: > Oh, of course. I had ignored the retries because it seemed like a bad > idea. If the timeout is based on time, why does it matter how many tries > there were? Because then you have a guaranteed number of tries, even if the timeout value was reached due to some reason. > Still, if you want to wait at least 25 ms, on a HZ=1000 system you might > wait only 3 ms. I'm sorry, I fail to see this. If there are more than three retries, then there is still the time_before-condition which keeps the loop running until the timeout is reached, no? > And on a HZ=100 system, you'll wait at least 60 ms when > the timeout only needed to be 25 ms. Yes, because there is this policy to retry at least three times. Maybe it is an idea to introduce a module parameter which lets the user select a suitable retry parameter? Wolfram -- Dipl.-Ing. Wolfram Sang | http://www.pengutronix.de Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c