lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] PCI: aardvark: Don't rely on jiffies while holding spinlock
Hello Remi,

Thanks for the new iteration!

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 10:31:42 +0200
Remi Pommarel <repk@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 ?

Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-27 10:34    [W:0.031 / U:8.912 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site