Yes, I applied this; in fact I have applied all the patches. If I increase the timeout there are no problems. The test I run creates 4 process and each one does several a lot of calls to InputChnl and OutputChnl, so I think this test is using the mailbox a lot and would be better a bigger timeout. What do you think? Regards, Fernando. -----Original Message----- From: Felipe Contreras [mailto:felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:04 PM To: Guzman Lugo, Fernando Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Kanigeri, Hari; Hiroshi DOYU; Ameya Palande; Felipe Contreras Subject: Re: [PATCH B 3/3] tidspbridge: decreate timeout to a saner value On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Guzman Lugo, Fernando <x0095840@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Felipe, > > I am seeing with this patch because of the timeout: > > DSP device detected !! > DSPProcessor_Attach succeeded. > dspbridge: timed out waiting for mailbox > dspbridge: timed out waiting for mailbox > dspbridge: timed out waiting for mailbox > dspbridge: timed out waiting for mailbox > dspbridge: timed out waiting for mailbox > dspbridge: timed out waiting for mailbox > dspbridge: timed out waiting for mailbox > dspbridge: timed out waiting for mailbox > dspbridge: timed out waiting for mailbox > dspbridge: timed out waiting for mailbox > dspbridge: timed out waiting for mailbox > ... > > Did you see any issue when you change to 1ms? Maybe we can use a bigger timeout. Did you apply patch #1 of the B series? I didn't see any timeout on my tests. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
