Brian,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:39:23AM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> 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.
>
Yes, good catch!
> 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.)
>
Yes, I agree. Maybe, "need_wait" or something like that would fit
better. Let me submit a new patch for this one.
> > + }
> >
>
> I think all the other patches up to this one are good. I may push them
> to l2-mtd.git now, unless you object.
>
Great, thanks a lot for reviewing and for all the feedback!
--
Ezequiel García, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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
