[PATCH 0/5] spi: zynqmp-gqspi: Improve error recovery by resetting

[Mark Brown]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 04:46:23PM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 1/17/25 13:41, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:

> >> Yes, unless the timeout is reached for "good reasons", ie. you request
> >> substantial amounts of data (typically from a memory device) and the
> >> timeout is too short compared to the theoretical time spent in the
> >> transfer. A loaded machine can also increase the number of false
> >> positives I guess.

> > I'd argue that all of those are bad reasons, I'd only expect us to time
> > out when there's a bug - choosing too low a timeout or doing things in a
> > way that generates timeouts under load is a problem.

> There's no transmit DMA for this device. So if you are under high load
> and make a long transfer, it's possible to time out. I don't know if
> it's possible to fix that very easily. The timeout calculation assumes
> that data is being transferred at the SPI bus rate.

In that case I wouldn't expect the timeout to apply to the whole
operation, or I'd expect a timeout applied waiting for something
interrupt driven to not to be fired unless we stop making forward
progress.  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20250120/3b3890ee/attachment.sig>