[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <540F13E4.7020907@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 09:51:16 -0500
From: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>, <wg@...ndegger.com>,
<mkl@...gutronix.de>
CC: <tony@...mide.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>, <mugunthanvnm@...com>,
<george.cherian@...com>, <balbi@...com>, <nsekhar@...com>,
<sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-can@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] can: c_can_platform: Fix c_can_hw_raminit_ti()
and add timeout
On 09/09/2014 09:45 AM, Roger Quadros wrote:
[...]
>>> /* We look only at the bits of our instance. */
>>> val &= mask;
>>> - while ((readl(priv->raminit_ctrlreg) & mask) != val)
>>> + while ((readl(priv->raminit_ctrlreg) & mask) != val) {
>>> udelay(1);
>>> + timeout++;
>>> +
>>> + if (timeout == 1000) {
>>
>> How did we come up with this number?
>
> wild guess ;), that it should be set in a few microseconds and the delay is not too
> large.
>
> Till I don't hear from hardware guys, it will remain a guess.
>
in cases like these, I suggest using emperical data as point ->
example doing some 10,000 iterations of the operation and picking up
the worse case number and double it.
Either way, you need to document the same, else a few years down the
line, when that number is in question, no one will know what it's
basis was..
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists