[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210510112249.5613978e@collabora.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 11:22:49 +0200
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
To: Patrice CHOTARD <patrice.chotard@...s.st.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
<linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <christophe.kerello@...s.st.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] spi: spi-mem: add automatic poll status
functions
On Mon, 10 May 2021 10:46:48 +0200
Patrice CHOTARD <patrice.chotard@...s.st.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +
> >> + if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->poll_status) {
> >> + ret = spi_mem_access_start(mem);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + return ret;
> >> +
> >> + reinit_completion(&ctlr->xfer_completion);
> >> +
> >> + ret = ctlr->mem_ops->poll_status(mem, op, mask, match,
> >> + timeout_ms);
> >> +
> >> + ms = wait_for_completion_timeout(&ctlr->xfer_completion,
> >> + msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_ms));
> >
> > Why do you need to wait here? I'd expect the poll_status to take care
> > of this wait.
>
> It was a request from Mark Brown [1]. The idea is to implement
> similar mechanism already used in SPI framework.
Well, you have to choose, either you pass a timeout to ->poll_status()
and let the driver wait for the status change (and return -ETIMEDOUT if
it didn't happen in time), or you do it here and the driver only has to
signal the core completion object. I think it's preferable to let the
driver handle the timeout though, because you don't know how the
status check will be implemented, and it's not like the
reinit_completion()+wait_for_completion_timeout() done here would
greatly simplify the drivers wait logic anyway.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists