Hi Robert,

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 09:11:24PM +0100, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Maxime Ripard <maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com> writes:
> 
> >  drivers/mtd/nand/pxa3xx_nand.c | 47 
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/pxa3xx_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/pxa3xx_nand.c
> > index 96b0b1d27df1..b2d8d6960765 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/pxa3xx_nand.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/pxa3xx_nand.c
> > @@ -480,6 +480,41 @@ static void disable_int(struct pxa3xx_nand_info *info, 
> > uint32_t int_mask)
> >     nand_writel(info, NDCR, ndcr | int_mask);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void drain_fifo(struct pxa3xx_nand_info *info, void *data, int len)
> > +{
> > +   if (info->ecc_bch) {
> > +           int index = 0;
> > +
> > +           while (index < (len * 4)) {
> > +                   u32 timeout;
> > +
> > +                   __raw_readsl(info->mmio_base + NDDB, data + index, 8);
> > +
> > +                   /*
> > +                    * According to the datasheet, when reading
> > +                    * from NDDB with BCH enabled, after each 32
> > +                    * bytes reads, we have to make sure that the
> > +                    * NDSR.RDDREQ bit is set
> > +                    */
> > +                   for (timeout = 0;
> > +                        !(nand_readl(info, NDSR) & NDSR_RDDREQ);
> > +                        timeout++) {
> > +                           if (timeout >= 5) {
> > +                                   dev_err(&info->pdev->dev,
> > +                                           "Timeout on RDDREQ while 
> > draining the FIFO\n");
> > +                                   return;
> > +                           }
> > +
> > +                           mdelay(1);
> So in worst case, we'll end up with 4 times mdelay(1) times len / 32.
> For a 2048 page, it is : 256ms where everything is stuck (mdelay and not
> msleep).
> 
> I know you had no choice because this is called from interrupt handler (top
> half). But having a irq handler and a irq thread handler would solve that 
> issue,
> and you'll end up with msleep(1) in this code.
> 
> I don't think an mdelay(256) is acceptable.

That's very true that this driver would need some love, but
valentine's day was last week.

I'm sorry, but this is a patch targeted for stable. This is a pure
bugfix. I won't rewrite the whole driver solely to make the driver
better, especially since that would make such a patch (or more likely
a whole serie) unsuitable for stable.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to