On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 04:46:23PM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote: > On 1/17/25 13:41, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > >> Yes, unless the timeout is reached for "good reasons", ie. you request > >> substantial amounts of data (typically from a memory device) and the > >> timeout is too short compared to the theoretical time spent in the > >> transfer. A loaded machine can also increase the number of false > >> positives I guess. > > I'd argue that all of those are bad reasons, I'd only expect us to time > > out when there's a bug - choosing too low a timeout or doing things in a > > way that generates timeouts under load is a problem. > There's no transmit DMA for this device. So if you are under high load > and make a long transfer, it's possible to time out. I don't know if > it's possible to fix that very easily. The timeout calculation assumes > that data is being transferred at the SPI bus rate. In that case I wouldn't expect the timeout to apply to the whole operation, or I'd expect a timeout applied waiting for something interrupt driven to not to be fired unless we stop making forward progress.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
