[PATCH v4 15/31] mtd: nand: pxa3xx: Use a completion to signal device ready

Brian,

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:39:23AM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:

On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 12:17:19PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:

quoted

--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/pxa3xx_nand.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/pxa3xx_nand.c

@@ -863,21 +867,28 @@ static int pxa3xx_nand_waitfunc(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *this)
 {
 	struct pxa3xx_nand_host *host = mtd->priv;
 	struct pxa3xx_nand_info *info = host->info_data;
+	int ret;
+
+	/* Need to wait? */
+	if (!info->is_ready) {
+		ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&info->dev_ready,
+				CHIP_DELAY_TIMEOUT);
+		if (!ret) {
+			dev_err(&info->pdev->dev, "Ready time out!!!\n");
+			return NAND_STATUS_FAIL;
+		}
+		info->is_ready = 1;

Shouldn't the is_ready=1 line to be above the if (!ret) condition? I
think you want to set is_ready=1 in either case (success or timeout).
With this code, any timeout will cause subsequent waitfunc()'s to block,
even if they are never going to catch an interrupt.

Yes, good catch!

I think this kind of mistake is easier to make now, since the 'is_ready'
field isn't properly descriptive any more. It doesn't represent "is the
device ready"; it represents "is there a pending command on which I need
to wait". (I don't care if you change the name; I'm just pointing this
out.)

Yes, I agree. Maybe, "need_wait" or something like that would fit
better. Let me submit a new patch for this one.

quoted

+	}
 

I think all the other patches up to this one are good. I may push them
to l2-mtd.git now, unless you object.

Great, thanks a lot for reviewing and for all the feedback!
-- 
Ezequiel Garc?a, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com