* [PATCH] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0001: Fix max timeout for locking operations
@ 2010-02-26 20:54 Anders Grafström
2010-04-01 12:14 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-05-13 23:06 ` David Woodhouse
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Anders Grafström @ 2010-02-26 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Woodhouse, Linux-MTD Mailing List
The max timeout is currently too short for some flash chips.
This patch increases it to 10 seconds. The typical timeout
remains unchanged (the tick period, 1000000/HZ).
Specification change #11 in '5 Volt Intel StrataFlash Memory Specification Update'
(297848-15) specifies an increase of Clear Block Lock-Bit Time Max to 7 sec.
This is contradicted by the table in Specification Change #8 which says .70 sec
but a 10 sec timeout doesn't hurt so play it safe.
Signed-off-by: Anders Grafström <anders.grafstrom@netinsight.net>
---
drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
index 9253043..83e4ae2 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
@@ -2077,7 +2077,7 @@ static int __xipram do_xxlock_oneblock(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip
*/
udelay = (!extp || !(extp->FeatureSupport & (1 << 5))) ? 1000000/HZ : 0;
- ret = WAIT_TIMEOUT(map, chip, adr, udelay, udelay * 100);
+ ret = WAIT_TIMEOUT(map, chip, adr, udelay, udelay * HZ * 10);
if (ret) {
map_write(map, CMD(0x70), adr);
chip->state = FL_STATUS;
--
1.6.6.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0001: Fix max timeout for locking operations
2010-02-26 20:54 [PATCH] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0001: Fix max timeout for locking operations Anders Grafström
@ 2010-04-01 12:14 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-05-13 23:06 ` David Woodhouse
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Artem Bityutskiy @ 2010-04-01 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anders Grafström; +Cc: Linux-MTD Mailing List, David Woodhouse
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 21:54 +0100, Anders Grafström wrote:
> The max timeout is currently too short for some flash chips.
> This patch increases it to 10 seconds. The typical timeout
> remains unchanged (the tick period, 1000000/HZ).
>
> Specification change #11 in '5 Volt Intel StrataFlash Memory Specification Update'
> (297848-15) specifies an increase of Clear Block Lock-Bit Time Max to 7 sec.
> This is contradicted by the table in Specification Change #8 which says .70 sec
> but a 10 sec timeout doesn't hurt so play it safe.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anders Grafström <anders.grafstrom@netinsight.net>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
> index 9253043..83e4ae2 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
> @@ -2077,7 +2077,7 @@ static int __xipram do_xxlock_oneblock(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip
> */
> udelay = (!extp || !(extp->FeatureSupport & (1 << 5))) ? 1000000/HZ : 0;
>
> - ret = WAIT_TIMEOUT(map, chip, adr, udelay, udelay * 100);
> + ret = WAIT_TIMEOUT(map, chip, adr, udelay, udelay * HZ * 10);
> if (ret) {
> map_write(map, CMD(0x70), adr);
> chip->state = FL_STATUS;
Pushed to l2-mtd-2.6.git / dunno.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0001: Fix max timeout for locking operations
2010-02-26 20:54 [PATCH] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0001: Fix max timeout for locking operations Anders Grafström
2010-04-01 12:14 ` Artem Bityutskiy
@ 2010-05-13 23:06 ` David Woodhouse
2010-05-17 17:26 ` Anders Grafström
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2010-05-13 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anders Grafström; +Cc: Linux-MTD Mailing List
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 21:54 +0100, Anders Grafström wrote:
> The max timeout is currently too short for some flash chips.
> This patch increases it to 10 seconds. The typical timeout
> remains unchanged (the tick period, 1000000/HZ).
>
> Specification change #11 in '5 Volt Intel StrataFlash Memory Specification Update'
> (297848-15) specifies an increase of Clear Block Lock-Bit Time Max to 7 sec.
> This is contradicted by the table in Specification Change #8 which says .70 sec
> but a 10 sec timeout doesn't hurt so play it safe.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anders Grafström <anders.grafstrom@netinsight.net>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
> index 9253043..83e4ae2 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
> @@ -2077,7 +2077,7 @@ static int __xipram do_xxlock_oneblock(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip
> */
> udelay = (!extp || !(extp->FeatureSupport & (1 << 5))) ? 1000000/HZ : 0;
>
> - ret = WAIT_TIMEOUT(map, chip, adr, udelay, udelay * 100);
> + ret = WAIT_TIMEOUT(map, chip, adr, udelay, udelay * HZ * 10);
I don't see how this makes any sense. What is the _unit_ of the argument
you're changing? Is it µs, is it ticks? You aren't just changing the
value here; you're actually changing the units. The dimensional analysis
doesn't make sense.
AFAICT this really is supposed to be µs, so multiplying by HZ has to be
wrong.
--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0001: Fix max timeout for locking operations
2010-05-13 23:06 ` David Woodhouse
@ 2010-05-17 17:26 ` Anders Grafström
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Anders Grafström @ 2010-05-17 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Woodhouse; +Cc: Linux-MTD Mailing List
On 2010-05-14 01:06, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 21:54 +0100, Anders Grafström wrote:
>> The max timeout is currently too short for some flash chips.
>> This patch increases it to 10 seconds. The typical timeout
>> remains unchanged (the tick period, 1000000/HZ).
>>
>> Specification change #11 in '5 Volt Intel StrataFlash Memory Specification Update'
>> (297848-15) specifies an increase of Clear Block Lock-Bit Time Max to 7 sec.
>> This is contradicted by the table in Specification Change #8 which says .70 sec
>> but a 10 sec timeout doesn't hurt so play it safe.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anders Grafström <anders.grafstrom@netinsight.net>
>> ---
>> drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c | 2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
>> index 9253043..83e4ae2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
>> @@ -2077,7 +2077,7 @@ static int __xipram do_xxlock_oneblock(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip
>> */
>> udelay = (!extp || !(extp->FeatureSupport & (1 << 5))) ? 1000000/HZ : 0;
>>
>> - ret = WAIT_TIMEOUT(map, chip, adr, udelay, udelay * 100);
>> + ret = WAIT_TIMEOUT(map, chip, adr, udelay, udelay * HZ * 10);
>
> I don't see how this makes any sense. What is the _unit_ of the argument
> you're changing? Is it µs, is it ticks? You aren't just changing the
> value here; you're actually changing the units. The dimensional analysis
> doesn't make sense.
>
> AFAICT this really is supposed to be µs, so multiplying by HZ has to be
> wrong.
Hm, I make it:
udelay: 1000000 / HZ = (µs/s) / (ticks/s) = µs/ticks
udelay_max (before): udelay * 100 = (µs/ticks) * ticks = µs
udelay_max (after): udelay * HZ * 10 = (µs/ticks) * (ticks/s) * s = µs
Here's a re-spin, with less HZ involvement:
>From 0ecd111a5cdc37631fa307d85e497075c467a82f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Anders Grafström <anders.grafstrom@netinsight.net>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 15:23:08 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0001: Fix timeout for locking operations
The lock/unlock timeout is currently way too short for some flash chips.
This patch increases it to 10 seconds. The typical delay remains unchanged.
Specification change #11 in '5 Volt Intel StrataFlash Memory Specification Update'
(297848-15) specifies an increase of Clear Block Lock-Bit Time Max to 7 sec.
This is contradicted by the table in Specification Change #8 which says .70 sec
but a 10 sec timeout doesn't hurt so play it safe.
Signed-off-by: Anders Grafström <anders.grafstrom@netinsight.net>
---
drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c | 14 +++++++++-----
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
index 62f3ea9..3a22f47 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
@@ -2045,7 +2045,8 @@ static int __xipram do_xxlock_oneblock(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip
{
struct cfi_private *cfi = map->fldrv_priv;
struct cfi_pri_intelext *extp = cfi->cmdset_priv;
- int udelay;
+ unsigned int udelay = 0;
+ unsigned int udelay_max = 0;
int ret;
adr += chip->start;
@@ -2071,12 +2072,15 @@ static int __xipram do_xxlock_oneblock(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip
BUG();
/*
- * If Instant Individual Block Locking supported then no need
- * to delay.
+ * If Instant Individual Block Locking is unsupported then use
+ * the tick period as the typical delay and 10 seconds for the timeout.
*/
- udelay = (!extp || !(extp->FeatureSupport & (1 << 5))) ? 1000000/HZ : 0;
+ if (!extp || !(extp->FeatureSupport & (1 << 5))) {
+ udelay = 1000000 / HZ;
+ udelay_max = 10000000;
+ }
- ret = WAIT_TIMEOUT(map, chip, adr, udelay, udelay * 100);
+ ret = WAIT_TIMEOUT(map, chip, adr, udelay, udelay_max);
if (ret) {
map_write(map, CMD(0x70), adr);
chip->state = FL_STATUS;
--
1.7.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-05-17 17:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-02-26 20:54 [PATCH] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0001: Fix max timeout for locking operations Anders Grafström
2010-04-01 12:14 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-05-13 23:06 ` David Woodhouse
2010-05-17 17:26 ` Anders Grafström
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).