Hi Miquèl,
On 4/27/20 8:22 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hi Christophe,
Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@xxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 15 Apr
2020 17:57:30 +0200:
This patch removes the constant FMC2_TIMEOUT_US.
FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS is set to 5 seconds and this constant is used
each time that we need to wait (except when the timeout value
is set by the framework)
Signed-off-by: Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@xxxxxx>
---
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/stm32_fmc2_nand.c | 11 +++++------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/stm32_fmc2_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/stm32_fmc2_nand.c
index ab53314..f159c39 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/stm32_fmc2_nand.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/stm32_fmc2_nand.c
@@ -37,8 +37,7 @@
/* Max ECC buffer length */
#define FMC2_MAX_ECC_BUF_LEN (FMC2_BCHDSRS_LEN * FMC2_MAX_SG)
-#define FMC2_TIMEOUT_US 1000
-#define FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS 1000
+#define FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS 5000
/* Timings */
#define FMC2_THIZ 1
@@ -525,9 +524,9 @@ static int stm32_fmc2_ham_calculate(struct nand_chip *chip, const u8 *data,
u32 sr, heccr;
int ret;
- ret = readl_relaxed_poll_timeout(fmc2->io_base + FMC2_SR,
- sr, sr & FMC2_SR_NWRF, 10,
- FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS);
+ ret = readl_relaxed_poll_timeout_atomic(fmc2->io_base + FMC2_SR,
+ sr, sr & FMC2_SR_NWRF, 1,
+ 1000 * FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS);
Is the _atomic suffix needed here? If yes it would deserve a separate
patch with Fixes/Stable tags.
I have currently not seen any issues. So, I will remove this
modification as we will move to regmap_read_poll_timeout in patch 10.
if (ret) {
dev_err(fmc2->dev, "ham timeout\n");
return ret;
@@ -1315,7 +1314,7 @@ static int stm32_fmc2_waitrdy(struct nand_chip *chip, unsigned long timeout_ms)
/* Check if there is no pending requests to the NAND flash */
if (readl_relaxed_poll_timeout_atomic(fmc2->io_base + FMC2_SR, sr,
sr & FMC2_SR_NWRF, 1,
- FMC2_TIMEOUT_US))
+ 1000 * FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS))
dev_warn(fmc2->dev, "Waitrdy timeout\n");
/* Wait tWB before R/B# signal is low */
You change the timeouts from 1ms to 5s.
Maybe 5s is a little bit too much IMHO but we don't really care as this
is a timeout. However 1ms is tight. If you are changing this value
because it triggers error (eg. when the machine is loaded), then it is
a fix and should appear like it.
Thanks,
Miquèl
No errors currently happens.
During our stress tests, in a overloaded system, we have seen that we
could be close to 1 second, even if we never met this value.
So, to be safe, I have set this timeout to 5 seconds.
As it is just a timeout value, I have not seen any side effect.
I am using the same timeout constant to avoid to have one timeout per
cases.
Regards,
Christophe Kerello.
