On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:38:28 +0100 Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > marvell_nfc_wait_op() waits for completion during 'timeout_ms' > milliseconds before throwing an error. While the logic is fine, the > value of 'timeout_ms' is given by the core and actually correspond to > the maximum time the NAND chip will take to complete the > operation. Assuming there is no overhead in the propagation of the > interrupt signal to the the NAND controller (through the Ready/Busy > line), this delay does not take into account the latency of the > operating system. For instance, for a page write, the delay given by > the core is rounded up to 1ms. Hence, when the machine is over loaded, > there is chances that this timeout will be reached. > > There are two ways to solve this issue that are not incompatible: > 1/ Enlarge the timeout value (if so, how much?). > 2/ Check after the waiting method if we did not miss any interrupt > because of the OS latency (an interrupt is still pending). In this > case, we assume the operation exited successfully. > > We choose the second approach that is a must in all cases, with the > possibility to also modify the timeout value to be, e.g. at least 1 > second in all cases. > > Fixes: 02f26ecf8c77 ("mtd: nand: add reworked Marvell NAND controller driver") > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/marvell_nand.c | 17 ++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/marvell_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/marvell_nand.c > index e6c3739cea73..bc0eef4ade4f 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/marvell_nand.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/marvell_nand.c > @@ -514,9 +514,14 @@ static void marvell_nfc_enable_int(struct marvell_nfc *nfc, u32 int_mask) > writel_relaxed(reg & ~int_mask, nfc->regs + NDCR); > } > > -static void marvell_nfc_clear_int(struct marvell_nfc *nfc, u32 int_mask) > +static int marvell_nfc_clear_int(struct marvell_nfc *nfc, u32 int_mask) ^ u32 ? With this fixed: Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> > { > + u32 reg; > + > + reg = readl_relaxed(nfc->regs + NDSR); > writel_relaxed(int_mask, nfc->regs + NDSR); > + > + return reg & int_mask; > } > > static void marvell_nfc_force_byte_access(struct nand_chip *chip, > @@ -683,6 +688,7 @@ static int marvell_nfc_wait_cmdd(struct nand_chip *chip) > static int marvell_nfc_wait_op(struct nand_chip *chip, unsigned int timeout_ms) > { > struct marvell_nfc *nfc = to_marvell_nfc(chip->controller); > + int pending; > int ret; > > /* Timeout is expressed in ms */ > @@ -695,8 +701,13 @@ static int marvell_nfc_wait_op(struct nand_chip *chip, unsigned int timeout_ms) > ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&nfc->complete, > msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_ms)); > marvell_nfc_disable_int(nfc, NDCR_RDYM); > - marvell_nfc_clear_int(nfc, NDSR_RDY(0) | NDSR_RDY(1)); > - if (!ret) { > + pending = marvell_nfc_clear_int(nfc, NDSR_RDY(0) | NDSR_RDY(1)); > + > + /* > + * In case the interrupt was not served in the required time frame, > + * check if the ISR was not served or if something went actually wrong. > + */ > + if (ret && !pending) { > dev_err(nfc->dev, "Timeout waiting for RB signal\n"); > return -ETIMEDOUT; > } ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/