On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 12:17:19PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/pxa3xx_nand.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/pxa3xx_nand.c
> @@ -863,21 +867,28 @@ static int pxa3xx_nand_waitfunc(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *this)
> {
> struct pxa3xx_nand_host *host = mtd->priv;
> struct pxa3xx_nand_info *info = host->info_data;
> + int ret;
> +
> + /* Need to wait? */
> + if (!info->is_ready) {
> + ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&info->dev_ready,
> + CHIP_DELAY_TIMEOUT);
> + if (!ret) {
> + dev_err(&info->pdev->dev, "Ready time out!!!\n");
> + return NAND_STATUS_FAIL;
> + }
> + info->is_ready = 1;
Shouldn't the is_ready=1 line to be above the if (!ret) condition? I
think you want to set is_ready=1 in either case (success or timeout).
With this code, any timeout will cause subsequent waitfunc()'s to block,
even if they are never going to catch an interrupt.
I think this kind of mistake is easier to make now, since the 'is_ready'
field isn't properly descriptive any more. It doesn't represent "is the
device ready"; it represents "is there a pending command on which I need
to wait". (I don't care if you change the name; I'm just pointing this
out.)
> + }
>
I think all the other patches up to this one are good. I may push them
to l2-mtd.git now, unless you object.
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
