[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <zTaajAZtS59Hv5offvbHJV1ptivBxD4WaZP_M-zQkicUtDb4mokpuKCFGIzUVL3p2yDSqHx9Uf2vIYVlbGeHN8xMJ6H3VWxwH3MPe1cH5a4=@pm.me>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 19:20:18 +0000
From: Michael Pratt <mcpratt@...me>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>, Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>, Vamshi Gajjela <vamshigajjela@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] serial: core: Store fifo timeout again
Hi Andy,
On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 14:58, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > + if (port->fifosize > 1)
> > + port->timeout = uart_fifo_timeout(port);
>
>
> else
> port->timeout = port->frame_time;
>
Consistent with what I said in the other reply, the only reason that
I have an if statement here, is to avoid doing extra math for devices
without a fifo, as a specifically calculated timeout value would be useless
in those cases.
However, if you don't like the 10 ms default timeout, perhaps port->frame_time
could actually be a more reasonable default value? That is, provided that we have a process
for calculating the proper value already in place...
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
Thanks for taking a look :D
--
MCP
Powered by blists - more mailing lists