From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
Addy Ke <addy.ke@rock-chips.com>,
Max Schwarz <max.schwarz@online.de>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: rk3x: Increase wait timeout to 1 second
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 10:33:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150504083312.GN25193@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1430430247-9632-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org>
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:44:07PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> While it's not sensible for an i2c command to _actually_ need more
> than 200ms to complete, let's increase the timeout anyway. Why? It
> turns out that if you've got a large number of printks going out to a
> serial console, interrupts on a CPU can be disabled for hundreds of
> milliseconds. That's not a great situation to be in to start with
> (maybe we should put a cap in vprintk_emit()) but it's pretty annoying
> to start seeing unexplained i2c timeouts.
>
> A normal system shouldn't see i2c timeouts anyway, so increasing the
> timeout should help people debugging without hurting other people
> excessively.
Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong: You say that the following can happen:
rk3x_i2c_xfer calls wait_event_timeout and blocks
schedule ... disable_irqs ... xfer complete ... do some work ... enable_irqs
control back to i2c driver after timeout elapsed
wait_event_timeout returned 0
The documentation of wait_event_timeout tells:
* Returns:
* 0 if the @condition evaluated to %false after the @timeout elapsed,
* 1 if the @condition evaluated to %true after the @timeout elapsed,
* or the remaining jiffies (at least 1) if the @condition evaluated
* to %true before the @timeout elapsed.
Where is the misunderstanding?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-04 8:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-30 21:44 [PATCH] i2c: rk3x: Increase wait timeout to 1 second Doug Anderson
2015-05-01 3:40 ` Caesar Wang
2015-05-01 3:42 ` Caesar Wang
2015-05-04 8:33 ` Uwe Kleine-König [this message]
2015-05-04 15:11 ` Doug Anderson
2015-05-04 15:24 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-05-04 16:38 ` Doug Anderson
2015-05-05 13:10 ` Uwe Kleine-König
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150504083312.GN25193@pengutronix.de \
--to=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
--cc=addy.ke@rock-chips.com \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=heiko@sntech.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=max.schwarz@online.de \
--cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox