Thanks for your input. My post was based on the (wrong) idea that
the kernel already uses different timeout values per node.
Therefore, having read your answer, I have a different opinion about
how to solve this now.
About your suggestions:
Unfortunately sending an early response and using a secondary register
as indication for completed flash writes doesnt work. In short, the
device isn't able to process packets while writing to flash and an early
answer followed by a period of non-responsiveness might lead to problems
on the windows side.
Also I dont like the idea of having such a big timeout for every bus
transaction. In case of 'normal' operation the device runs fine with
a standard timeout value.
I will now try to work around this problem in userspace basically by
ignoring the timeout error. The correct transmission of the write
request will already be confirmed by the acknowledge packet, after all.
Philipp Beyer
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
