From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932566AbbGJNoe (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:44:34 -0400 Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:54204 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754251AbbGJNod (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:44:33 -0400 Message-ID: <559FCC37.10201@ti.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:14:23 +0530 From: Vignesh R User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Sverdlin , Wolfram Sang , Felipe Balbi CC: Tony Lindgren , , , Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] i2c: busses: i2c-omap: Increase timeout for i2c interrupt References: <1436504994-31137-1-git-send-email-vigneshr@ti.com> <559F8670.2060305@nokia.com> <20150710090909.GF1528@katana> <559FC5D7.3000108@ti.com> <559FC7E9.1060003@nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <559FC7E9.1060003@nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 07/10/2015 06:56 PM, Alexander Sverdlin wrote: > Hi! > > On 10/07/15 15:17, ext Vignesh R wrote: >>>> I would propose you to throw away spinlocks. Convert threaded IRQ to >>>>>> just one hardirq handler. And continue debugging. You will reduce the >>>>>> load of the system with the above measures, maybe it will not happen >>>>>> any more, maybe you'll figure out that problem is somewhere else. >>>> >>>> Or this. >> I am not convinced with moving entire code at hardirq context. I believe >> its better to keep hardirq as small as possible. > > How deep is the controller's FIFO? 1 byte? 2 bytes? As per AM57x TRM[1] section 24.1.4.8 max FIFO depth can be 64bytes. [1] http://www.ti.com/lit/ug/spruhz6/spruhz6.pdf -- Regards Vignesh