Re: [PATCH v9 3/3] MTD: at91: atmel_nand: Update driver to support Programmable Multibit ECC controller

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 21:24 +0800, Josh Wu wrote:
> +       while ((pmecc_readl_relaxed(host->ecc, SR) & PMECC_SR_BUSY)) {
> +               if (unlikely(timeout_count++ > PMECC_MAX_TIMEOUT_COUNT)) {
> +                       dev_err(host->dev, "PMECC: Timeout to get ECC value.\n");
> +                       return; /* Time out */

How this error is communicated then up the the user?

> +               }
> +               cpu_relax();
> +       }

I see this pattern all over the place - why people consider it reliable?
Is this code guaranteed to run on the same CPU?

Why not to use loops_per_jiffie * msecs_to_jiffies(TIMOUT) instead to
calculate how many iterations to do? Yes, due to HW register reading and
cpu_relax() the real timeout will be larger, but this is about error
anyway, so it does not hurt to iterate longer?

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [PDAs]     [Linux]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [Photos]

Add to Google Follow linuxarm on Twitter