Dear Fabio Estevam,
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Marek Vasut marek.vasut@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Fabio Estevam,
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
int mxs_dma_go(int chan) {
uint32_t timeout = 10000;
uint32_t timeout = 10000000;Should we use a proper timeout mechanism instead?
What would that be? I think 10 seconds is more than plenty for now.
Ok, but we need to change to unsigned int to be able to fit 10000000:
Do we? 10M still fits in ... but it's indeed a good idea, can you submit a patch for that please?
--- a/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/mxs.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/mxs.c @@ -81,7 +81,8 @@ void enable_caches(void) #endif }
-int mxs_wait_mask_set(struct mxs_register_32 *reg, uint32_t mask, int timeout) +int mxs_wait_mask_set(struct mxs_register_32 *reg, uint32_t mask, unsigned + int timeout) { while (--timeout) { if ((readl(®->reg) & mask) == mask) @@ -92,7 +93,8 @@ int mxs_wait_mask_set(struct mxs_register_32 *reg, uint32_t ma return !timeout; }
-int mxs_wait_mask_clr(struct mxs_register_32 *reg, uint32_t mask, int timeout) +int mxs_wait_mask_clr(struct mxs_register_32 *reg, uint32_t mask, unsigned + int timeout) { while (--timeout) { if ((readl(®->reg) & mask) == 0) diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mxs/sys_proto.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/ar index 4610363..983b888 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mxs/sys_proto.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mxs/sys_proto.h @@ -26,10 +26,10 @@ int mxs_reset_block(struct mxs_register_32 *reg); int mxs_wait_mask_set(struct mxs_register_32 *reg, uint32_t mask,
int timeout);
unsigned int timeout);int mxs_wait_mask_clr(struct mxs_register_32 *reg, uint32_t mask,
int timeout);
unsigned int timeout);int mxsmmc_initialize(bd_t *bis, int id, int (*wp)(int));
Regards,
Fabio Estevam
Best regards, Marek Vasut