Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750887AbXALMPO (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:15:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750972AbXALMPN (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:15:13 -0500 Received: from luna.alliedvisiontec.com ([213.203.238.80]:49836 "EHLO luna.alliedvisiontec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750887AbXALMPL (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:15:11 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 1986 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:15:11 EST Subject: ieee1394 feature needed: overwrite SPLIT_TIMEOUT from userspace From: Philipp Beyer To: LKML Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:42:37 +0100 Message-Id: <1168602157.5074.4.camel@ahr-pbe-lx.avtnet.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2082 Lines: 53 Hi, I'm investigating an unwanted behaviour of our firewire devices in connection with the ieee1394 kernel module. The problem is caused by a non standard-conform behaviour of our devices. Anyway, changes on the device-side dont seem to be the best solution, so I'm looking for a workaround in terms of a kernel patch. The problem: Our devices exceed the SPLIT_TIMEOUT for write requests in some situations, where write accesses to the devices flash memory are triggered. The SPLIT_TIMEOUT could be adjusted as it's part of the CSR layout, but the longest interval possible is 8 seconds. We need a substantial longer interval to assure failure-free operation. (the maximum timeout needed may be around 120 seconds) The presumed solution: These long timeouts are only needed in a few rare situations like writing user presets to flash or firmware updates. As far as I've examined the kernel code it would be the best thing to have a function (ioctl?) accessible from userspace that overwrites the stored SPLIT_TIMEOUT for a certain connected device. This way there should not be any interferences in case of normal operation. Until (rare) write accesses to the flash memory are performed, a reasonable short timeout could be used. Since I don't have any real experience in kernel hacking yet, this should be interpreted as a feature request at first: If the described feature is easy to implement I would appreciate if someone could do this. Otherwise I'm confident that I'm able to write a patch on my own. In this case the critical part would be to meet the standards of the kernel community, since we would like to have the patch included in the mainline. Therefore I'm also interested in any kind of advices about how to realize an appropriate patch. Thanks, Philipp Beyer Software Development Allied Vision Technologies - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/