[i2c] [PATCH] Add a new-style driver for most I2C EEPROMs
w.sang at pengutronix.de
Thu Apr 24 12:47:40 CEST 2008
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
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);
keep_trying = time_before(jiffies, timeout);
} while (keep_trying);
Dipl.-Ing. Wolfram Sang | http://www.pengutronix.de
Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/i2c/attachments/20080424/f9d56f2e/attachment.bin
More information about the i2c