[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdbB9AYWiaoLtr6QLZXSsyGZYkDRy2F6VKopHxx+c=FsWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:19:10 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@...sung.com>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
s.samuel@...sung.com, r.mahale@...sung.com,
aniroop.mathur@...il.com,
Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <ch.naveen@...sung.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
Vlad Dogaru <vlad.dogaru@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IIO: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
> On 26/11/16 03:47, Aniroop Mathur wrote:
[bmp280.c]
>> /* Wait to make sure we started up properly */
>> - mdelay(data->start_up_time);
>> + usleep_range(data->start_up_time, data->start_up_time + 100);
>
> As this in probe I doubt we really care. Could just set it longer to shut up the warnings.
> Still would like some input from say Linus on this...
Hm, I don't think it's a big issue... this works too it just looks overworked.
On the runtime_resume() path we use msleep() instead which I guess is why
it is not changed in this patch, but they have the same purpose.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists