Hi Miquel, On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 5:44 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Masahiro, > > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Tue, 12 Feb > 2019 16:12:57 +0900: > > > Currently, wait_for_completion_timeout() is always passed in the > > hard-coded msec_to_jiffies(1000). There is no specific reason for > > 1000 msec, but it was chosen to be long enough. > > > > With the exec_op() conversion, NAND_OP_WAITRDY_INSTR provides more > > precise timeout value, depending on the preceding command. Let's use > > it (+ 100 msec) to bail out earlier in error case. The 100 msec extra > > is in case the heavy load on the system. > > > > I am still keeping the hard-coded values for other higher level hooks > > such as page_read, page_write, etc. We know the value of tR, tPROG, but > > we have unknowledge about the data transfer speed of the DMA engine. > > > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I really am not convinced by this change. Please just define a timeout > big enough for most cases (1000 is okay) and use it systematically. OK, I will drop this patch. and ignore ctx.waitrdy.timeout_ms. > Thanks, > Miquèl > > ______________________________________________________ > Linux MTD discussion mailing list > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/ -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/