Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 11:22:49 +0200
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
To:     Patrice CHOTARD <patrice.chotard@foss.st.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
        <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <christophe.kerello@foss.st.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] spi: spi-mem: add automatic poll status
 functions
Message-ID: <20210510112249.5613978e@collabora.com>
In-Reply-To: <542000b4-1a65-5090-72f9-441c75ee1098@foss.st.com>
References: <20210507131756.17028-1-patrice.chotard@foss.st.com>
        <20210507131756.17028-2-patrice.chotard@foss.st.com>
        <20210508095506.4d0d628a@collabora.com>
        <542000b4-1a65-5090-72f9-441c75ee1098@foss.st.com>
Organization: Collabora
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 10 May 2021 10:46:48 +0200
Patrice CHOTARD <patrice.chotard@foss.st.com> wrote:

> >   
> >> +
> >> +	if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->poll_status) {
> >> +		ret = spi_mem_access_start(mem);
> >> +		if (ret)
> >> +			return ret;
> >> +
> >> +		reinit_completion(&ctlr->xfer_completion);
> >> +
> >> +		ret = ctlr->mem_ops->poll_status(mem, op, mask, match,
> >> +						 timeout_ms);
> >> +
> >> +		ms = wait_for_completion_timeout(&ctlr->xfer_completion,
> >> +						 msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_ms));  
> > 
> > Why do you need to wait here? I'd expect the poll_status to take care
> > of this wait.  
> 
> It was a request from Mark Brown [1]. The idea is to implement
> similar mechanism already used in SPI framework.

Well, you have to choose, either you pass a timeout to ->poll_status()
and let the driver wait for the status change (and return -ETIMEDOUT if
it didn't happen in time), or you do it here and the driver only has to
signal the core completion object. I think it's preferable to let the
driver handle the timeout though, because you don't know how the
status check will be implemented, and it's not like the
reinit_completion()+wait_for_completion_timeout() done here would
greatly simplify the drivers wait logic anyway.