Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-101456-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <2640a495-97a0-4669-a53a-e367af956a78@arinc9.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:06:04 +0300
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: mt7530: increase reset hold time
To: Justin Swartz <justin.swartz@risingedge.co.za>
Cc: Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org>, DENG Qingfang <dqfext@gmail.com>,
 Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
 Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>, Vladimir Oltean
 <olteanv@gmail.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
 AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
 netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
References: <f594a72a91d12f1d027a06962caa9750@risingedge.co.za>
 <20240312192117.7789-1-justin.swartz@risingedge.co.za>
 <bf0ed70f-e106-4a7f-a98c-de34658feb4d@arinc9.com>
 <e6525cac666a033a5866465abb3e63f1@risingedge.co.za>
Content-Language: en-US
From: =?UTF-8?B?QXLEsW7DpyDDnE5BTA==?= <arinc.unal@arinc9.com>
In-Reply-To: <e6525cac666a033a5866465abb3e63f1@risingedge.co.za>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 13.03.2024 14:52, Justin Swartz wrote:
> 
> On 2024-03-13 10:59, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>> This ship has sailed anyway. Now the changes the first patch did must be
>> reverted too. I will deal with this from now on, you can stop sending
>> patches regarding this.
> 
> At least if the first patch isn't reverted, the approach used is
> less likely to result in the problem occuring, IMHO.

I disagree that the previous approach is less likely to result in the
problem occurring. If you don't like the delay amount we agreed on, feel
free to express a higher amount.

I also disagree on introducing a solution that is in addition to another
solution, both of which fix the same problem.

> 
> The delay between deliberately switching the LEDs off, instead of
> only waiting on chip reset logic to handle that, and the reset
> assertion could be considered a "reset setup" period to complement
> the original reset hold period.
> 
> Increasing the hold period to what should be 5000 - 5100 usec,
> definitely made the problem go away my testing, but the previous
> approach is (if nothing else) more explicit in its intent.

I don't want any unnecessary complications on the code I'm maintaining. I
already gave a clear intent on the patch log that introduces a simpler and
more efficient approach, it doesn't need to be on the code.

Arınç