Hi Thomas, On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:34:20AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello Remi, > > Thanks for the new iteration! > > On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 10:31:42 +0200 > Remi Pommarel <r...@triplefau.lt> wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c > > b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c > > index fc0fe4d4de49..ee05ccb2b686 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c > > @@ -175,7 +175,8 @@ > > (PCIE_CONF_BUS(bus) | PCIE_CONF_DEV(PCI_SLOT(devfn)) | \ > > PCIE_CONF_FUNC(PCI_FUNC(devfn)) | PCIE_CONF_REG(where)) > > > > -#define PIO_TIMEOUT_MS 1 > > +#define PIO_RETRY_CNT 10 > > +#define PIO_RETRY_DELAY 2 /* 2 us*/ > > So this changes the timeout from 1ms to just 20us, a division by 50 > from the previous timeout value. From my measurements, it could > sometime take up to 6us from a single PIO read operation to complete, > which is getting close to the 20us timeout. > > Shouldn't PIO_RETRY_CNT be kept at 500, so that we keep using a 1ms > timeout ?
Damn. You right of course, sorry about that. Thanks -- Remi
