Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] spi: core: handle timeout error from transfer_one() | From | Sergey Suloev <> | Date | Wed, 4 Apr 2018 22:19:59 +0300 |
| |
On 04/04/2018 10:08 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 07:24:11PM +0300, Sergey Suloev wrote: >> On 04/03/2018 07:18 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 07:00:55PM +0300, Sergey Suloev wrote: >>>> On 04/03/2018 06:52 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 06:29:00PM +0300, Sergey Suloev wrote: >>>>>> As long as sun4i/sun6i SPI drivers have overriden the default >>>>>> "wait for completion" procedure then we need to properly >>>>>> handle -ETIMEDOUT error from transfer_one(). >>>>> Why is this connected to those drivers specifically? >>>> These 2 drivers have their own "waiting" code and not using the code from >>>> SPI core. >>> Does this not apply to any other driver - why is this something we only >>> have to do when these drivers do it? That's what's setting off alarm >>> bells. >> sun4i/sun6i drivers have let's say "smart" waiting while SPI core uses a >> fixed interval to wait. >> >> I can't say for every SPI driver in kernel, that's outside of my area of >> expertise. > I'm not sure what's specific about the sun4i / sun6i case here. Your > patch doesn't have anything to do with the delay before the timeout, > but the fact that we return -ETIMEDOUT in the first place. > > And I'm pretty sure that papering over an error returned by a driver > is not the right thing to do. > > Maxime > > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
do you mean the changes in spi.c are not required at all ?
My point was to eat ETIMEDOUT error from transfer_one() as it is just a mark and
shouldn't be handled as a normal error.
| |