On 1/20/25 08:49, Mark Brown wrote: > 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. I don't know if there are any helpers we can use for this. To implement this we'd need something like schedule_timeout() but where the interrupt handler calls mod_timer() whenever it does work. --Sean
