From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 206-248-137-77.dsl.teksavvy.com ([206.248.137.77] helo=mail.isoar.ca) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1KIUiu-0001PV-M3 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:32:41 +0000 Received: from [10.0.200.176] (vpn02.rossvideo.com [209.5.118.98]) by mail.isoar.ca (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6EKWRQq001141 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:32:33 -0400 Message-ID: <487BB7D9.4070505@isoar.ca> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:32:25 -0400 From: "Andrew E. Mileski" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] nand_wait_ready() timeout scaling References: <1209583375-11136-1-git-send-email-andrewm@isoar.ca> In-Reply-To: <1209583375-11136-1-git-send-email-andrewm@isoar.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Andrew E. Mileski wrote: > The nand_wait_ready() timeout was hardcoded to 2 jiffies, which does not > scale with the system timer frequency. Using a guess of a 250 Hz system > timer frequency, I believe the timeout was meant to be 8 ms. Just a heads-up for those similarly banging their heads trying to get NAND to work for them, that I think I've also found 2 instances of a bug: not waiting tWB before calling nand_wait_ready() in nand_base.c nand_do_read_ops() nand_do_read_oob() I almost think the ndelay(tWB) should be in nand_wait_ready(), but I'm still playing with it. -- Andrew E. Mileski