[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 17:54:26 +0300
From: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@...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 05:51 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> 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.
In my tests the bit was either set immediately or never at all.
Not sure if we should increase it further.
>
> 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..
>
OK. I'll add a comment there.
cheers,
-roger
--
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