[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1201131514490.31704@kernel.research.nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:22:12 +0200 (EET)
From: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@...ia.com>
To: Dmitry Antipov <dmitry.antipov@...aro.org>
cc: linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, patches@...aro.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay()
Hi,
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> From f447d78db65c6675e69466e8ed08364ff065ac08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Dmitry Antipov <dmitry.antipov@...aro.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:51:03 +0400
> Subject: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay()
>
> ---
Shouldn't you add a proper patch description and a signed-off-by line?
> drivers/mmc/core/core.h | 8 ++------
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.h b/drivers/mmc/core/core.h
> index 14664f1..a77851e 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.h
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.h
> @@ -47,12 +47,8 @@ void mmc_power_off(struct mmc_host *host);
>
> static inline void mmc_delay(unsigned int ms)
> {
> - if (ms < 1000 / HZ) {
> - cond_resched();
> - mdelay(ms);
> - } else {
> - msleep(ms);
> - }
> + unsigned long us = ms * USEC_PER_MSEC;
> + usleep_range(us, us + 1000);
> }
Anyway, I think the change is good. On systems with multiple MMC devices
the boot/probe can spend 100-200 ms alone just doing busylooping delays. I
think e.g. in mmc_rescan() the code uses frequently mmc_delay(10).
> void mmc_rescan(struct work_struct *work);
> --
> 1.7.7.4
A.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists