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

Reply via email to