From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Vipin Kumar <vipin.kumar@st.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:24:07 +0530
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] usbh/ehci: Increase timeout for enumeration
In-Reply-To: <50C1BEDD.6040202@compulab.co.il>
References: <bbba7de214710423270361c6c99bbb39d5ef15c2.1354870373.git.vipin.kumar@st.com>
	<50C1BEDD.6040202@compulab.co.il>
Message-ID: <50C8543F.8000508@st.com>
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


>> +		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

Thanks
Vipin