On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 at 23:13, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 2:33 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > More importantly, the busy timeout work never gets to run, which > > > indicates that we are no longer hanging and waiting for an IRQ to be > > > raised. Is that correct? > > > > Ehh, I should have looked more closely at the log. Indeed there is one > > case where the timeout work kicks in. > > Yeah... > > It wasn't until I added the timeout that I could get the whole > thing to work, both are needed: handling lost IRQs and then > an occasional timeout. > > > Maybe we should log the information about the current ->busy_state at > > that point too, so understand under what condition we are hanging? I > > think we should also log the actual used timeout in this case. > > Sure thing, please merge this patch as-is (solves a problem!) and I try > to make a debug improvement patch on top with what I have (like > printing the command) and add in the busy state as well. Okay, I have applied the patch for next, thanks! Yann, feel free to provide your tested-by tag too, I can amend the patch after I have applied it. Kind regards Uffe
