On Apr 4, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Eric Nelson wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 04/04/2013 11:03 AM, Gabbasov, Andrew wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>>> From: Eric Nelson [eric.nel...@boundarydevices.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 03:47
>>> To: Gabbasov, Andrew
>>> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; Behme, Dirk - Bosch; Fabio Estevam
>>> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mx6: fsl_esdhc: Fix waiting for DMA operation
>>> completion
>>>
>>
>> So, do you think the latter (modified) loop condition
>>
>> } while (!(irqstat & IRQSTAT_TC) || !(irqstat & IRQSTAT_DINT) ||
>> (esdhc_read32(®s->prsstat) & PRSSTAT_DLA));
>>
>> will be correct?
>>
>
> I think the right thing to do is eliminate the DLA test entirely,
> so the loop condition can be simplified to something like this:
>
> #define TRANSFER_COMPLETE (IRQSTAT_TC|IRQSTAT_DINT)
>
> do {
> ...
> } while (TRANSFER_COMPLETE != (irqstat&TRANSFER_COMPLETE));
That looks right to me. I have been known to mistakenly write loops that are
supposed to wait for two conditions to only wait for one of those. Apparently I
need remedial boolean logic lessons.
>
> If there is another part that needs to bail out on PRSSTAT_DLA,
> it seems that the affected part should be the one with the #ifdef
I don't think we need a special case. Just correct logic. :/
Andy
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
