On 05/22/2018 11:42 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Marek,
Hi,
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The data link active signal usually takes ~20 uSec to be asserted,
>> poll the bit more often to avoid useless delays in this function.
>> Use udelay() instead of usleep() for such a small delay as suggested
>> by the timer documentation and because this will be used in atomic
>> context later on when the suspend/resume patches land.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
>> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c
>> @@ -529,13 +529,13 @@ static void phy_write_reg(struct rcar_pcie *pcie,
>>
>> static int rcar_pcie_wait_for_dl(struct rcar_pcie *pcie)
>> {
>> - unsigned int timeout = 10;
>> + unsigned int timeout = 10000;
>>
>> while (timeout--) {
>> if ((rcar_pci_read_reg(pcie, PCIETSTR) & DATA_LINK_ACTIVE))
>> return 0;
>>
>> - msleep(5);
>> + udelay(5);
>
> + cpu_relax()?
Is it safe to use in atomic context ? Because of that suspend/resume thing.
>> }
>
> if this ever happens, it will have blocked for more than 50 ms...
Well yes, so did the previous thing.
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
