[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1026d44b-0907-4835-bc95-32f9bbcf4831@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 18:41:26 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Amit Kumar Mahapatra <amit.kumar-mahapatra@....com>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] spi: zynqmp-gqspi: Improve error recovery by
resetting
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> On 17/01/2025 at 13:21:58 GMT, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > If you're hitting a timeout that tends to indicate there's already a
> > serious stability problem...
> Yes, unless the timeout is reached for "good reasons", ie. you request
> substantial amounts of data (typically from a memory device) and the
> timeout is too short compared to the theoretical time spent in the
> transfer. A loaded machine can also increase the number of false
> positives I guess.
I'd argue that all of those are bad reasons, I'd only expect us to time
out when there's a bug - choosing too low a timeout or doing things in a
way that generates timeouts under load is a problem.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists