Hi Przemyslaw,
On Oct 1, 2013, at 7:59 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
> Hello Pantelis,
> Thank you for reply
>
>
> On 10/01/2013 05:50 PM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> while (sdhci_readl(host, SDHCI_PRESENT_STATE) & mask) {
>> - if (timeout == 0) {
>> + if (time == cmd_timeout) {
>> time >= cmd_timeout here.
>>
>> You rely on the timeout hitting exactly the same value which is not
>> guaranteed.
> I think this condition is guaranteed here, because of "time" value that is
> incremented only inside the loop.
> Also if meets (time == cmd_timeout) condition and next if timeout will be
> increased twice, then eg. if current timeout
> is 100ms -> next will be 200 ms, so it needs 100 loops and no more.
>
> Am I wrong?
>
OK, let's take things one at a time:
First of all you use the global variable cmd_timeout, and you alter it's value.
Where it is reset back
in case the operation starts all over again?
Secondly the check time == cmd_timeout is very very fragile. You depend on the
loop only incrementing
the time by one.
This is not always guaranteed to be the case in the future.
Using a greater than comparison you are safe even if in sometime in the future
the step changes and
there is absolutely no performance penalty.
> Regards
>
> --
> Przemyslaw Marczak
> Samsung R&D Institute Poland
> Samsung Electronics
> p.marc...@samsung.com
>
Regards
-- Pantelis
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
