On 09/09/2014 05:51 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 09/09/2014 09:45 AM, Roger Quadros wrote: > [...] >>>> /* 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? >> >> wild guess ;), that it should be set in a few microseconds and the delay is not too >> large. >> >> Till I don't hear from hardware guys, it will remain a guess. >> > > in cases like these, I suggest using emperical data as point -> > example doing some 10,000 iterations of the operation and picking up > the worse case number and double it. In my tests the bit was either set immediately or never at all. Not sure if we should increase it further. > > Either way, you need to document the same, else a few years down the > line, when that number is in question, no one will know what it's > basis was.. > OK. I'll add a comment there. cheers, -roger -- 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