From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:25:11 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] usbh/ehci: Increase timeout for enumeration
In-Reply-To: <50C8543F.8000508@st.com>
References: <bbba7de214710423270361c6c99bbb39d5ef15c2.1354870373.git.vipin.kumar@st.com>
	<50C1BEDD.6040202@compulab.co.il> <50C8543F.8000508@st.com>
Message-ID: <201212121225.11667.marex@denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Dear Vipin Kumar,

> >> +		ulong start = get_timer(0);
> >> +
> >> +		do {
> >> +			ret = usb_get_port_status(dev, i + 1, portsts);
> >> +			if (ret<  0) {
> >> +				USB_HUB_PRINTF("get_port_status failed\n");
> >> +				break;
> >> +			}
> >> +
> >> +			portstatus = le16_to_cpu(portsts->wPortStatus);
> >> +			portchange = le16_to_cpu(portsts->wPortChange);
> >> +
> >> +			if ((portchange&  USB_PORT_STAT_C_CONNECTION) ==
> >> +				(portstatus&  USB_PORT_STAT_CONNECTION))
> > 
> > I don't know if there is any corner case when the above check
> > will always fail and so it will always wait a maximal delay time.
> > Are those registers that identical, or can there be differences?
> > 
> >> +				break;
> >> +
> >> +			mdelay(100);
> >> +		} while (get_timer(start)<  CONFIG_SYS_HZ * 10);
> > 
> > Is there any justification for the CONFIG_SYS_HZ * 10?
> > I would be much more fine with this patch if there were any
> > (even just test based * 2) reason for that number.
> 
> Not really. Just a practical test.
> Marek, can I have comments from you as well
> 

Sorry, I'm really busy these days. I went through it and I see Igor still has 
some comment. Just fix that one and I'm good.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut