On 12 August 2015 at 14:40, Olliver Schinagl [off-list ref] wrote:

On 12-08-15 14:32, Hans de Goede wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On 12-08-15 14:23, michal.suchanek at ruk.cuni.cz wrote:

quoted

The 250ms timeout is too short.

On my system enabling the oclk takes under 50ms and disabling slightly
over 100ms when idle. Under load disabling the clock can take over
350ms.

This does not make mmc clock gating look like good option to have on
sunxi but the system should not crash with mmc clock gating enabled
nonetheless.

This patch sets the timeout to 750ms and adds debug prints which show
how long enabling/disabling the clock took so more data can be collected
from other systems.

Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <redacted>

This is a big patch for just changing a timeout, most of this is in
extra verbosity which IMHO has little value, in the error path w
know we will have waited aprox 750 ms, so printing the waiting
time there is not worth all the extra code.

As for adding the warning I'm even less of a big fan of that,
if we need higher timeouts, we need higher timeouts, spamming the
kernel logs with that we are actually hitting the higher timeouts
is not productive IMHO.

Can you please resend this as a one-liner just changing the timeout ?

If we expect the timeout to be short and it isn't that means something is wrong.

The user is probably experiencing degraded performance in that case so
it's good to have a diagnostic for it IMHO.

Yes, printing of the timeout in the error case does not have that much
value but since it's calculated anyway I just pasted it there.

While I can't speak for Michal obviously,

I left the debugging bit (in my v2 that i sent 2 minutes ago) as both you
and Hans where content with it back then and both acked it.

Michal, feel free to send the v3 without the debug info, unless you want me
to do it ;)

I don't really care either way so long as the boards do not crash.

Thanks

Michal