On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:44:07PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> While it's not sensible for an i2c command to _actually_ need more
> than 200ms to complete, let's increase the timeout anyway. Why? It
> turns out that if you've got a large number of printks going out to a
> serial console, interrupts on a CPU can be disabled for hundreds of
> milliseconds. That's not a great situation to be in to start with
> (maybe we should put a cap in vprintk_emit()) but it's pretty annoying
> to start seeing unexplained i2c timeouts.
>
> A normal system shouldn't see i2c timeouts anyway, so increasing the
> timeout should help people debugging without hurting other people
> excessively.
Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong: You say that the following can happen:
rk3x_i2c_xfer calls wait_event_timeout and blocks
schedule ... disable_irqs ... xfer complete ... do some work ...
enable_irqs
control back to i2c driver after timeout elapsed
wait_event_timeout returned 0
The documentation of wait_event_timeout tells:
* Returns:
* 0 if the @condition evaluated to %false after the @timeout elapsed,
* 1 if the @condition evaluated to %true after the @timeout elapsed,
* or the remaining jiffies (at least 1) if the @condition evaluated
* to %true before the @timeout elapsed.
Where is the misunderstanding?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
