On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 2:17 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Shouldn't we schedule the work at the point when we move to > MMCI_BUSY_WAITING_FOR_START_IRQ instead? Yup > > +/* > > + * This busy timeout worker is used to "kick" the command IRQ if a > > + * busy detect IRQ fails to appear in reasonable time. Only used on > > + * variants with busy detection IRQ delivery. > > + */ > > +static void busy_timeout_work(struct work_struct *work) > > In a way to try to be consistent with naming functions, perhaps add > the prefix "ux500_*? I thought to actually propose a patch for STM32 to use this too, as an extra fallback timeout. But I don't know if it's useful to them, so I'll rename it. Yours, Linus Walleij
