mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux I2C <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: i2c algo bit timeout question
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:57:28 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090423085728.18d0c9cf@hyperion.delvare> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <21d7e9970904221619v7d7990bfq697cfca64a7ed6d2@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Dave,

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:19:21 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> Hi to any i2c people,

i2c people tend to live on the linux-i2c list, Cc'd.

> So I've been debugging some EDID fetching failures and wanted to ask
> about the use of time_after_eq in the i2c bit banging code.
> 
> EDID specification recommends 2ms timeout for the ack on the initial
> read, so we set the timeout in our code to usecs_to_jiffies(2200) (10%
> margin of error). On my systems this ends up as 1, and we seem to fail
> to retrieve EDID one in 10-20 times. Changing the value to 2, always
> gets me the EDID I want.
> 
> So looking at drivers/i2c/algos/i2c-algo-bit.c it appears it uses
> time_after_eq on jiffies, start + timeout value. So if we have a 10ms
> jiffie resolution and enter this at the 9ms point in the 10ms window,
> we will seem to exit the loop after 1ms instead of the minimum which I
> asked for which is 2.2ms. Should this code use time_after instead of
> time_after_eq?

Yes, I think it should. This bug has been there pretty much since
forever. I suppose people didn't notice because they usually use a
large timeout value.

Please send a patch fixing this and I'll apply it.

-- 
Jean Delvare

      reply	other threads:[~2009-04-23  6:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-04-22 23:19 Dave Airlie
2009-04-23  6:57 ` Jean Delvare [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090423085728.18d0c9cf@hyperion.delvare \
    --to=khali@linux-fr.org \
    --cc=airlied@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®