On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:20:17AM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote: > If it hasn't been long enough since the last write, the next write > isn't suppose to work. That's the expected operation of the device. > But if it has been long enough, and the write still fails, then it > seems to me that the behavior has changed from normal operation to an > error. I think you got a point there (unless someone gained experience that retries do help for some quirky chips or other cases).
> > > Still, if you want to wait at least 25 ms, on a HZ=1000 system you
> > > might wait only 3 ms.
> > I'm sorry, I fail to see this. If there are more than three retries,
> > then there is still the time_before-condition which keeps the loop
> > running until the timeout is reached, no?
> Except for the timing problem I pointed out before. The timeout is
> checked before the write takes place. So if after the 3rd attempt the
> msleep(), or kernel preemption, etc., delays for 22 ms or more, the
> next write will never happen.
Got it now, I misunderstood you before. We do wait 25ms in total, it is
just that the last write-try happened at 3ms. This is indeed bad. The
following code should handle it better. (Skipping retries for now)
---
timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(write_timeout);
do {
keep_trying = time_before(jiffies, timeout);
transfer();
if (success)
return count;
msleep(1);
} while (keep_trying);
return -ETIMEDOUT;
---
Wolfram
--
Dipl.-Ing. Wolfram Sang | http://www.pengutronix.de
Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
