On 6/26/19 2:49 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 6/26/19 1:25 PM, Melin Tomas wrote: >> On 6/26/19 1:47 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: >> >>> On 6/26/19 12:39 PM, Melin Tomas wrote: >>> >>>> As such, it's probably a good idea to keep the same delay values here as >>>> in the original driver unless good reason to use something else. >>>> >>>> As what goes for the original reasoning for 3ms, the commit history does >>>> not mention that so I cannot comment. >>> So would you be so kind and research this ? >> Based on a short study of other i2c bus drivers it seems most have bus >> busy timeout checks. >> >> The timeout values seems to differ, ranging from milliseconds to seconds. > Yep > >> So probably it's just a number, after all it's just a check to know if >> we are good to go. > And is the number large enough ?
As mentioned, good approach is probably using value known to work instead of guessing a new number. thanks, Tomas > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
