[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNARCVua6zXvCzd+3UugXF-mAOs3GwVXYPis6ndtS1D8ntw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 02:30:12 +0900
From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>,
Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Chuanxiao Dong <chuanxiao.dong@...el.com>,
Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Enrico Jorns <ejo@...gutronix.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/23] mtd: nand: denali: rework interrupt handling
2017-06-09 2:26 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>:
> ->dev_ready() is optional, but we may end up with waiting more than needed.
>
> case NAND_CMD_RESET:
> if (chip->dev_ready)
> break;
> udelay(chip->chip_delay);
>
>
> chip->chip_delay is probably set large enough, so this is not optimal.
I misunderstood the code.
The following line will be the most of the part of delay.
nand_wait_status_ready(mtd, 250);
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Powered by blists - more mailing lists