On Thu, 2022-11-03 at 22:35 +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno > > Sent: 03 November 2022 09:44 > > > > Il 03/11/22 06:28, Bayi Cheng ha scritto: > > > From: bayi cheng <bayi.cheng@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > The timeout value of the current dma read is unreasonable. For > > > example, > > > If the spi flash clock is 26Mhz, It will takes about 1.3ms to > > > read a > > > 4KB data in spi mode. But the actual measurement exceeds 50s when > > > a > > > dma read timeout is encountered. > > > > > > In order to be more accurately, It is necessary to use > > > msecs_to_jiffies, > > > After modification, the measured timeout value is about 130ms. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: bayi cheng <bayi.cheng@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/spi/spi-mtk-nor.c | 7 ++++--- > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mtk-nor.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mtk- > > > nor.c > > > index d167699a1a96..3d989db80ee9 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-mtk-nor.c > > > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mtk-nor.c > > > @@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ static int mtk_nor_dma_exec(struct mtk_nor > > > *sp, u32 from, unsigned int length, > > > dma_addr_t dma_addr) > > > { > > > int ret = 0; > > > - ulong delay; > > > + ulong delay, timeout; > > > u32 reg; > > > > > > writel(from, sp->base + MTK_NOR_REG_DMA_FADR); > > > @@ -376,15 +376,16 @@ static int mtk_nor_dma_exec(struct mtk_nor > > > *sp, u32 from, unsigned int length, > > > mtk_nor_rmw(sp, MTK_NOR_REG_DMA_CTL, MTK_NOR_DMA_START, > > > 0); > > > > > > delay = CLK_TO_US(sp, (length + 5) * BITS_PER_BYTE); > > > + timeout = (delay + 1) * 100; > > > > > > if (sp->has_irq) { > > > if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&sp->op_done, > > > - (delay + 1) * 100)) > > > + msecs_to_jiffies(max_t(size_t, timeout / 1000, > > > 10)))) > > > > You're giving a `size_t` variable to msecs_to_jiffies(), but > > checking `jiffies.h`, > > this function takes a `const unsigned int` param. > > Please change the type to match that. > > The type shouldn't matter at all. > What matters is the domain of the value. > > Quite why you need to use max_t(size_t, ...) is another matter. > timeout is ulong so max(timeout/1000, 10ul) should be fine. > > But is ulong even right? > The domain of the value is almost certainly the same on 32bit and > 64bit. > So you almost certainly need u32 or u64. > > David > Hi David & Angelo Thank you for your comments! To sum up, I think the next version will make the following two changes: 1, The timeout value will not exceed u32, so the type of timeout will be changed from ulong to u32. 2, Change msecs_to_jiffies(max_t(size_t, timeout / 1000, 10)) to be msecs_to_jiffies(max(timeout/1000, 10ul)). If you think these changes are not enough, please let me know, Thanks! Best Regards, Bayi > > > > Aside from that, your `timeout` variable contains a timeout in > > microseconds and > > this means that actually using msecs_to_jiffies() is suboptimal > > here. > > > > Please use usecs_to_jiffies() instead. > > > > Regards, > > Angelo > > - > Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, > MK1 1PT, UK > Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)