|
@@ -39,14 +39,22 @@
|
|
|
#define EC_MSG_PREAMBLE_COUNT 32
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
- * We must get a response from the EC in 5ms. This is a very long
|
|
|
- * time, but the flash write command can take 2-3ms. The EC command
|
|
|
- * processing is currently not very fast (about 500us). We could
|
|
|
- * look at speeding this up and making the flash write command a
|
|
|
- * 'slow' command, requiring a GET_STATUS wait loop, like flash
|
|
|
- * erase.
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-#define EC_MSG_DEADLINE_MS 5
|
|
|
+ * Allow for a long time for the EC to respond. We support i2c
|
|
|
+ * tunneling and support fairly long messages for the tunnel (249
|
|
|
+ * bytes long at the moment). If we're talking to a 100 kHz device
|
|
|
+ * on the other end and need to transfer ~256 bytes, then we need:
|
|
|
+ * 10 us/bit * ~10 bits/byte * ~256 bytes = ~25ms
|
|
|
+ *
|
|
|
+ * We'll wait 4 times that to handle clock stretching and other
|
|
|
+ * paranoia.
|
|
|
+ *
|
|
|
+ * It's pretty unlikely that we'll really see a 249 byte tunnel in
|
|
|
+ * anything other than testing. If this was more common we might
|
|
|
+ * consider having slow commands like this require a GET_STATUS
|
|
|
+ * wait loop. The 'flash write' command would be another candidate
|
|
|
+ * for this, clocking in at 2-3ms.
|
|
|
+ */
|
|
|
+#define EC_MSG_DEADLINE_MS 100
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
* Time between raising the SPI chip select (for the end of a
|