On 09/09/2014 09:31 AM, Roger Quadros wrote: > Pass the correct 'mask' and 'value' bits to c_can_hw_raminit_wait_ti(). > They seem to have been swapped in the usage instances. > > TI's RAMINIT DONE mechanism is buggy and may not always be > set after the START bit is set. So add a timeout mechanism to > c_can_hw_raminit_wait_ti(). > > Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> > --- > drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can_platform.c | 14 +++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can_platform.c b/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can_platform.c > index 109cb44..b144e71 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can_platform.c > +++ b/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can_platform.c > @@ -75,10 +75,18 @@ static void c_can_plat_write_reg_aligned_to_32bit(const struct c_can_priv *priv, > static void c_can_hw_raminit_wait_ti(const struct c_can_priv *priv, u32 mask, > u32 val) > { > + int timeout = 0; > /* We look only at the bits of our instance. */ > val &= mask; > - while ((readl(priv->raminit_ctrlreg) & mask) != val) > + while ((readl(priv->raminit_ctrlreg) & mask) != val) { > udelay(1); > + timeout++; > + > + if (timeout == 1000) { How did we come up with this number? > + dev_err(&priv->dev->dev, "%s: time out\n", __func__); > + break; lets say we did timeout.. see below: > + } > + } > } > > static void c_can_hw_raminit_ti(const struct c_can_priv *priv, bool enable) > @@ -97,14 +105,14 @@ static void c_can_hw_raminit_ti(const struct c_can_priv *priv, bool enable) > ctrl |= CAN_RAMINIT_DONE_MASK(priv->instance); > writel(ctrl, priv->raminit_ctrlreg); > ctrl &= ~CAN_RAMINIT_DONE_MASK(priv->instance); > - c_can_hw_raminit_wait_ti(priv, ctrl, mask); > + c_can_hw_raminit_wait_ti(priv, mask, ctrl); > > if (enable) { > /* Set start bit and wait for the done bit. */ > ctrl |= CAN_RAMINIT_START_MASK(priv->instance); > writel(ctrl, priv->raminit_ctrlreg); > ctrl |= CAN_RAMINIT_DONE_MASK(priv->instance); > - c_can_hw_raminit_wait_ti(priv, ctrl, mask); > + c_can_hw_raminit_wait_ti(priv, mask, ctrl); is it possible for us to continue? does it make sense for us to change that void to a int and handle error cascading? > } > spin_unlock(&raminit_lock); > } > -- Regards, Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html