On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 06:59:06PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote: > broonie@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 17:43:06 +0100: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 06:15:35PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > > broonie@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 15:20:27 +0100: > > Like I say we should know the transfer speed so we can do better than > > 4ms/10k - we know how long it takes to clock out each byte, we can just > > multiply that by the size of the transfer then add some fudge factor for > > setup/teardown overhead. 1s feels pretty generous too. The sun6i > > driver for example does > > max(tfr->len * 8 * 2 / (tfr->speed_hz / 1000), 100U) > > and just doubles the length based timeout with a minimum of 100ms which > > seems reasonable. > I already had issues with ~0.1s timeouts on NAND controllers, just > because the machine was heavily loaded. I believe we should avoid too > small timeouts, it does not make sense and make things worse under load. Well, we can raise that minimum if it's causing issues - 500ms say? 1s does feel a bit extreme for short transfers (and note that we'll use more than 100ms for long enough transfers).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
