Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 4 Oct 2018 16:22:32 +0200
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>
To:     Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@gmail.com>
Cc:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
        linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mtd: rawnand: ams-delta: use ->exec_op()
Message-ID: <20181004162232.5ac363be@bbrezillon>
In-Reply-To: <38470936.GRFaOSl3cF@z50>
References: <20180719081508.5dafebde@bbrezillon>
        <7546835.d2Xs8Qh0bZ@z50>
        <20181004155933.0a32c4ac@bbrezillon>
        <38470936.GRFaOSl3cF@z50>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 16:11:42 +0200
Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Legacy nand_wait_ready() uses a hardcoded timeout value of 400 ms.   Should we 
> follow the same approach in nand_gpio_waitrdy(), or should we rather let 
> drivers pass the timeout value, like in case of nand_soft_waitrdy()?

The latter.