Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] mtd: rawnand: stm32_fmc2: use FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS for timeouts

From: Miquel Raynal
Date: Mon Apr 27 2020 - 14:22:20 EST


Hi Christophe,

Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@xxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 15 Apr
2020 17:57:30 +0200:

> This patch removes the constant FMC2_TIMEOUT_US.
> FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS is set to 5 seconds and this constant is used
> each time that we need to wait (except when the timeout value
> is set by the framework)
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@xxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/stm32_fmc2_nand.c | 11 +++++------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/stm32_fmc2_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/stm32_fmc2_nand.c
> index ab53314..f159c39 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/stm32_fmc2_nand.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/stm32_fmc2_nand.c
> @@ -37,8 +37,7 @@
> /* Max ECC buffer length */
> #define FMC2_MAX_ECC_BUF_LEN (FMC2_BCHDSRS_LEN * FMC2_MAX_SG)
>
> -#define FMC2_TIMEOUT_US 1000
> -#define FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS 1000
> +#define FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS 5000
>
> /* Timings */
> #define FMC2_THIZ 1
> @@ -525,9 +524,9 @@ static int stm32_fmc2_ham_calculate(struct nand_chip *chip, const u8 *data,
> u32 sr, heccr;
> int ret;
>
> - ret = readl_relaxed_poll_timeout(fmc2->io_base + FMC2_SR,
> - sr, sr & FMC2_SR_NWRF, 10,
> - FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS);
> + ret = readl_relaxed_poll_timeout_atomic(fmc2->io_base + FMC2_SR,
> + sr, sr & FMC2_SR_NWRF, 1,
> + 1000 * FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS);

Is the _atomic suffix needed here? If yes it would deserve a separate
patch with Fixes/Stable tags.

> if (ret) {
> dev_err(fmc2->dev, "ham timeout\n");
> return ret;
> @@ -1315,7 +1314,7 @@ static int stm32_fmc2_waitrdy(struct nand_chip *chip, unsigned long timeout_ms)
> /* Check if there is no pending requests to the NAND flash */
> if (readl_relaxed_poll_timeout_atomic(fmc2->io_base + FMC2_SR, sr,
> sr & FMC2_SR_NWRF, 1,
> - FMC2_TIMEOUT_US))
> + 1000 * FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS))
> dev_warn(fmc2->dev, "Waitrdy timeout\n");
>
> /* Wait tWB before R/B# signal is low */

You change the timeouts from 1ms to 5s.

Maybe 5s is a little bit too much IMHO but we don't really care as this
is a timeout. However 1ms is tight. If you are changing this value
because it triggers error (eg. when the machine is loaded), then it is
a fix and should appear like it.

Thanks,
MiquÃl