On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 07:24:11PM +0300, Sergey Suloev wrote: > On 04/03/2018 07:18 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 07:00:55PM +0300, Sergey Suloev wrote: > > > On 04/03/2018 06:52 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 06:29:00PM +0300, Sergey Suloev wrote: > > > > > As long as sun4i/sun6i SPI drivers have overriden the default > > > > > "wait for completion" procedure then we need to properly > > > > > handle -ETIMEDOUT error from transfer_one(). > > > > Why is this connected to those drivers specifically? > > > These 2 drivers have their own "waiting" code and not using the code from > > > SPI core. > > Does this not apply to any other driver - why is this something we only > > have to do when these drivers do it? That's what's setting off alarm > > bells. > > sun4i/sun6i drivers have let's say "smart" waiting while SPI core uses a > fixed interval to wait. > > I can't say for every SPI driver in kernel, that's outside of my area of > expertise. I'm not sure what's specific about the sun4i / sun6i case here. Your patch doesn't have anything to do with the delay before the timeout, but the fact that we return -ETIMEDOUT in the first place. And I'm pretty sure that papering over an error returned by a driver is not the right thing to do. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
