On 6/26/19 2:19 PM, Melin Tomas wrote: > > 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.
So why did kernel pick that specific number ? Surely there was some reasoning, they didn't just pull it out of /dev/random . -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
