| Message ID | 1352123511-31538-1-git-send-email-matthieu.castet@parrot.com |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 14:51 +0100, Matthieu CASTET wrote: > nand_wait_ready timeout should not assume HZ=1000. > Make it independent of HZ value like it is done in nand_wait. > > Signed-off-by: Matthieu CASTET <matthieu.castet@parrot.com> > --- > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > index d5ece6e..ee49fe2 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ static void panic_nand_wait_ready(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned long timeo) > void nand_wait_ready(struct mtd_info *mtd) > { > struct nand_chip *chip = mtd->priv; > - unsigned long timeo = jiffies + 2; > + unsigned long timeo = jiffies + (2 * HZ) / 1000; I HZ=100, (2 * HZ) / 1000 will be 0, which is probably wrong. Instead, this cruft should be re-worked and should use milliseconds for time-outs, and use things like 'msecs_to_jiffies()' instead.
Artem Bityutskiy a écrit : > On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 14:51 +0100, Matthieu CASTET wrote: >> nand_wait_ready timeout should not assume HZ=1000. >> Make it independent of HZ value like it is done in nand_wait. >> >> Signed-off-by: Matthieu CASTET <matthieu.castet@parrot.com> >> --- >> drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c >> index d5ece6e..ee49fe2 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c >> @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ static void panic_nand_wait_ready(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned long timeo) >> void nand_wait_ready(struct mtd_info *mtd) >> { >> struct nand_chip *chip = mtd->priv; >> - unsigned long timeo = jiffies + 2; >> + unsigned long timeo = jiffies + (2 * HZ) / 1000; > > I HZ=100, (2 * HZ) / 1000 will be 0, which is probably wrong. > > Instead, this cruft should be re-worked and should use milliseconds for > time-outs, and use things like 'msecs_to_jiffies()' instead. > > Ok, Should I also update nand_wait [1] ? Matthieu [1] static int nand_wait(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip) { unsigned long timeo = jiffies; int status, state = chip->state; if (state == FL_ERASING) timeo += (HZ * 400) / 1000; else timeo += (HZ * 20) / 1000;
On Thu, 2012-11-22 at 18:06 +0100, Matthieu CASTET wrote:
> Should I also update nand_wait [1] ?
Would be nice I think.
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c index d5ece6e..ee49fe2 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ static void panic_nand_wait_ready(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned long timeo) void nand_wait_ready(struct mtd_info *mtd) { struct nand_chip *chip = mtd->priv; - unsigned long timeo = jiffies + 2; + unsigned long timeo = jiffies + (2 * HZ) / 1000; /* 400ms timeout */ if (in_interrupt() || oops_in_progress)
nand_wait_ready timeout should not assume HZ=1000. Make it independent of HZ value like it is done in nand_wait. Signed-off-by: Matthieu CASTET <matthieu.castet@parrot.com> --- drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)