From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Vipin Kumar <vipin.kumar@st.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:41:42 +0530
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] usbh/ehci: Increase timeout for enumeration
In-Reply-To: <201212121225.11667.marex@denx.de>
References: <bbba7de214710423270361c6c99bbb39d5ef15c2.1354870373.git.vipin.kumar@st.com>
	<50C1BEDD.6040202@compulab.co.il> <50C8543F.8000508@st.com>
	<201212121225.11667.marex@denx.de>
Message-ID: <50C9719E.9050001@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

On 12/12/2012 4:55 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> 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.
>

Thanks marek, I would send a v3 soon

> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut
> .
>