[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdaVCOB_C45KTEtuoZRwb66x1saGHN3A_ZpY7T=a8YtV+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:53:15 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>
Cc: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
Vladimir Kondratiev <vladimir.kondratiev@...ileye.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik.bayouk@...ileye.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] i2c: nomadik: replace jiffies by ktime for FIFO
flushing timeout
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 3:38 PM Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com> wrote:
> Somewhat related to this patch: while writing it, I noticed the total
> timeout of flush_i2c_fifo() is 10 times the timeout. Without this
> series, this means 10*200ms of busywaiting!
>
> If you have an opinion on a more sensible option for this I could add a
> patch to my V2. I don't know enough to pick a sensible value.
>
> I'm unsure if it makes sense that the timeout of flush_i2c_fifo() is a
> multiple of the transfer timeout. Does it make sense that those two
> timeouts are correlated?
I have a *vague* memory of the timeouts for flushing needing to be longer
but I might be mistaken. This is probably a Srinidhi or even Sachin question...
Sadly I don't have their current mail addresses.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists