Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:25:02 +0100 | From | Michael Walle <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 06/12] spi: spi-fsl-dspi: Replace interruptible wait queue with a simple completion |
| |
Am 2020-03-16 14:00, schrieb Vladimir Oltean: > On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 14:49, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 02:29:09PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: >> >> > Correct, the real problem is that I forgot to add a Fixes: tag for >> > patch 5. I'll do that now. >> >> OK. The series otherwise looked fine but I'll wait for testing. >> Michael, if there's issues remaining it might be good to get some >> Tested-bys for the patches prior to whatever's broken so we can get >> those fixes in (but obviously verifying that is work so only if you >> have time).
I'm just about to test it. While my former "cat /dev/mtdN > /dev/null" is working. I had the impression that it was slower, so I tried to test it with dd now and a known chunk size.. only to find out that it is still not working:
# dmesg|grep spi [ 1.894891] spi-nor spi1.0: w25q128fw (16384 Kbytes) .. # time cat /dev/mtd0 > /dev/null real 0m 30.73s user 0m 0.00s sys 0m 1.02s # dd if=/dev/mtd0 of=/dev/null bs=64 262144+0 records in 262144+0 records out # dd if=/dev/mtd0 of=/dev/null bs=64 262144+0 records in 262144+0 records out # dd if=/dev/mtd0 of=/dev/null bs=64 dd: /dev/mtd0: Input/output error
I also wanted to test how it behaves if there are multiple processes access the /dev/mtdN device. I haven't found the time to dig into the call chain if see if there is any locking. Because what happens if transfer_one_message() is called twice at the same time from two different processes?
> > This time I verified with a protocol analyzer all transfer lengths > from 1 all the way to 256, with this script: > > #!/bin/bash > > buf='' > > for i in $(seq 0 255); do > » buf="${buf}\x$(printf '%02x' ${i})" > » spidev_test --device /dev/spidev2.0 --bpw 8 --cpha --speed > 5000000 -p "${buf}" > done > > It looked fine as far as I could tell, and also the problems > surrounding Ctrl-C are no longer present. Nonetheless it would be good > if Michael could confirm, but I know that he's very busy too so it's > understandable if he can no longer spend time on this.
I'm working on it ;)
-michael
| |