On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 21:21:48 +0800 Liang Yang <liang.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Boris, > > On 8/24/2018 8:48 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 22:08:42 +0800 > > Liang Yang <liang.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> You have to wait tWB, that's for sure. > >>> > >> we have a maximum 32 commands fifo. when command is written into > >> NFC_REG_CMD, it doesn't mean that command is executing right now, maybe > >> it is buffering on the queue.Assume one ERASE operation, when 2nd > >> command(0xd0) is written into NFC_REG_CMD and then come into > >> NAND_OP_WAITRDY_INSTR, if I read the RB status by register, it may be > >> wrong because 0xd0 may not being executed. it is unusual unless > >> buffering two many command. > > > > You should flush the queue and wait for it to empty at the end of > > ->exec_op(). > > > >> so it seems that i still need to use nand_soft_waitrdy or wait cmd is > >> executed somewhere. > > > > Don't you have a WAIT_FOR_RB instruction? What is NFC_CMD_RB for? Also, > > NFC_CMD_IDLE seems to allow you to add an arbitrary delay, and that's > > probably what you should use for tWB. > > > > em, I can wait for RB by reading the status from register now. but when > calling nand_soft_waitrdy, i really met a problem. One *jiffies* is > about 4ms. When programming, it pass 1ms to > instr->ctx.waitrdy.timeout_ms and nand_soft_waitrdy will be only one > *jiffies* to reach timeout. And then calling nand_soft_waitrdy maybe at > the tail of 4ms interval, it may only wait 100us and next jiffies > arrive. Is it correct? Hm, no. If you initialize the time you compare to (using time_before() or time_after()) correctly it should not happen. Anyway, I keep thinking this is not how it should be done. Did you try NFC_CMD_RB? Did you ask HW designers what it was created for? ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/