On Tue, 16 Apr 2024, Michael Pratt wrote: > On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 14:58, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > + if (port->fifosize > 1) > > > + port->timeout = uart_fifo_timeout(port); > > > > > > else > > port->timeout = port->frame_time; > > > > > Consistent with what I said in the other reply, the only reason that > I have an if statement here, is to avoid doing extra math for devices > without a fifo, as a specifically calculated timeout value would be useless > in those cases. Please benchmark to show this actually matters if want to make this claim. Otherwise just do the math always. > However, if you don't like the 10 ms default timeout, perhaps port->frame_time > could actually be a more reasonable default value? That is, provided > that we have a process > for calculating the proper value already in place... While it would be a step toward the correct direction, you'd still need to add the safety there which is already done by uart_fifo_timeout(). So no, I don't think there's advantage of using port->frame_time over just calling uart_fifo_timeout() and ensuring uart_fifo_timeout() is always using at least 1 as the FIFO size when it does the calculations. -- i.
