Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] i2c: ocores: increase poll timeout to total transfer timeout

[Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>]

On Tue, 2026-01-13 at 15:21 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 02:02:07PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > 
> > > The behavior in the regular case is unchanged, spinning for up to 1ms,
> > > but the open-coded poll loop is replaced with read_poll_timeout_atomic()
> > > as suggested by Andrew Lunn.
> > 
> > Hmm, spinning 1ms is still a lot. Can't we just use read_poll_timeout()
> > for the whole timeout? I can't see that it will cause a regression. But
> > please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> I've forgotten the context, but
> 
> /**
>  * ocores_poll_wait() - Wait until is possible to process some data
>  * @i2c: ocores I2C device instance
>  *
>  * Used when the device is in polling mode (interrupts disabled).
> 
> If interrupts are disabled, you cannot use read_poll_timeout().  You
> have to use read_poll_timeout_atomic(). And that spins anyway.
> 
>      Andrew


This code does not have interrupts disabled, we could not fall back from
read_poll_timeout_atomic() to read_poll_timeout() otherwise. My understanding is
that a sleeping wait would make it more likely for a switch to a different task
to happen after every byte, negatively impacting I2C performance; this is not
something I have verified however.

It is spinning for 1ms because that's what the old code did (which only spun
without fallback to sleeping). Reducing this to the time needed to transfer 1
byte in the absence of clock stretching should not cause issues (200us for
50kHz; could also be made to depend on the clock rate, so it would be even less
spinning at higher frequencies).

Best,
Matthias