[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJXejQjbR1qZEYTcyrFUYivJ5_U0Tchmh5V4ZqOi5NK=7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:44:10 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jenny Ho <hsiufangho@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eeprom: at24: Add permission to write_timeout
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:12 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:04:42AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 9:10 AM Jenny Ho <hsiufangho@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Need to change timeout time for different use
> > > cases to prevent I2C error cases. Open the api
> > > and allow Read/Write permission to write_timeout
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jenny Ho <hsiufangho@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
> > > index 926408b41270..39caead4058c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
> > > @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(at24_io_limit, "Maximum bytes per I/O (default 128)");
> > > * it's important to recover from write timeouts.
> > > */
> > > static unsigned int at24_write_timeout = 25;
> > > -module_param_named(write_timeout, at24_write_timeout, uint, 0);
> > > +module_param_named(write_timeout, at24_write_timeout, uint, 0600);
> > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(at24_write_timeout, "Time (in ms) to try writes (default 25)");
> > >
> > > struct at24_chip_data {
> > > --
> > > 2.30.0.280.ga3ce27912f-goog
> > >
> >
> > IMO this should be a per-chip device property and not a global module
> > param. Any chance you could maybe try and extend the driver with a new
> > property for that?
>
> This already is a global module parameter :)
>
I know but if we're touching it, then better do the right thing. :)
> But I agree, having it per-device would be much better, a sysfs
> attribute would easily work for that.
>
I was thinking about a generic device property that could be set from
device tree etc. I doubt there's much need to change this at runtime
outside of development?
Bart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists