From: <Rengarajan.S@microchip.com>
To: <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc: <Bryan.Whitehead@microchip.com>, <davem@davemloft.net>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<pabeni@redhat.com>, <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
<edumazet@google.com>, <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>,
<kuba@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1] net: microchip: lan743x: Reduce PTP timeout on HW failure
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 08:52:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5ee0e9beb684dcf0b19b5c0698deea033cfff588.camel@microchip.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <01145749-30a7-47a3-a5e6-03f4d0ee1264@lunn.ch>
On Tue, 2024-05-07 at 03:33 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> know the content is safe
>
> On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 10:33:00AM +0530, Rengarajan S wrote:
> > The PTP_CMD_CTL is a self clearing register which controls the PTP
> > clock
> > values. In the current implementation driver waits for a duration
> > of 20
> > sec in case of HW failure to clear the PTP_CMD_CTL register bit.
> > This
> > timeout of 20 sec is very long to recognize a HW failure, as it is
> > typically cleared in one clock(<16ns). Hence reducing the timeout
> > to 1 sec
> > would be sufficient to conclude if there is any HW failure
> > observed. The
> > usleep_range will sleep somewhere between 1 msec to 20 msec for
> > each
> > iteration. By setting the PTP_CMD_CTL_TIMEOUT_CNT to 50 the max
> > timeout
> > is extended to 1 sec.
>
> This patch has already been merged, so this is just for my
> curiosity. The hardware is dead. Does it really matter if we wait 1s
> or 20 seconds. It is still dead? This is a void function. Other than
> reporting that the hardware is dead, nothing is done. So this change
> seems pointless?
>
> Andrew
Hi Andrew, based on the customer experience they felt that there might
be cases where the 20-sec delay can cause the issue(reporting the HW to
be dead). For boards with defects/failure on few occasions it was found
that resetting the chip can lead to successful resolution; however,
since we need to wait for 20 sec for chip reset, we found that reducing
the timeout to 1 sec would be optimal.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-08 8:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-02 5:03 [PATCH net-next v1] net: microchip: lan743x: Reduce PTP timeout on HW failure Rengarajan S
2024-05-04 8:52 ` Simon Horman
2024-05-06 10:00 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2024-05-07 1:33 ` Andrew Lunn
2024-05-08 8:52 ` Rengarajan.S [this message]
2024-05-08 11:57 ` Andrew Lunn
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=5ee0e9beb684dcf0b19b5c0698deea033cfff588.camel@microchip.com \
--to=rengarajan.s@microchip.com \
--cc=Bryan.Whitehead@microchip.com \
--cc=UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=richardcochran@gmail.com \
/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