[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNASpP9qQABLqXPqz8bQNsMjuxb8GKHU4Xxy_dAhgzT2O2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:17:49 +0900
From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: wait for tWHR after NAND_CMD_STATUS / NAND_CMD_READID
2017-09-26 15:43 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:39:24 +0900
> Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>
>> Read Status and Read ID require tWHR before reading the first data.
>> Insert a very short wait to make sure to meet the spec.
>>
>> I have not seen any problem report for now, but nand_command() and
>> nand_command_lP() are generic hooks, so it makes sense to implement
>> fail-safe code here.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
>> ---
>
OK, will do.
BTW, I see unconditional wait for tWB a few lines below,
but it gives no performance regression because we will wait
much longer in nand_wait_ready().
/*
* Apply this short delay always to ensure that we do wait tWB in
* any case on any machine.
*/
ndelay(100);
nand_wait_ready(mtd);
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Powered by blists - more mailing lists