Em Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:20:52 +0100 Sean Young <sean@xxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 07:00:50AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Yeah, we could limit it to run only 512 times (or some other reasonable > > quantity), but in order to do that, we need to be sure that, on each read(), > > the FIFO will shift - e. g. no risk of needing to do more than one read > > to get the next element. That would work if the FIFO is implemented via > > flip-flops. But if it is implemented via some slow memory, or if the > > shift logic is implemented via some software on a micro-controller, it > > may need a few interactions to get the next value. > > > > Without knowing about the hardware implementation, I'd say that setting > > a max time for the whole FIFO interaction is safer. > > Ok. If the 10ms timeout is reached, there really is a problem; should we > report an error in this case? Maybe, but then it should likely warn only once. Thanks, Mauro
