[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKdAkRRGh_kDPWz0KZhEj5+dwgjXY=vMMsE2v60+eqTJG01zQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:10:44 -0800
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...math.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Daniel Jansen <djaniboe@...il.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Robert Dolca <robert.dolca@...el.com>,
"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: silead: use msleep() for long delays
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 01/12/2017 05:21 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>>
>> the delays here are in the 10 to 20ms range so msleep() will do - no
>> need to burden the highres timer subsystem.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>
>> ---
>>
>> Problem found by coccinelle script
>>
>> While msleep(10) has a worst case uncertainty of 10ms (on HZ=100 systems)
>> this seems ok here as the delays are not called frequently (init and
>> reset functions)
>
>
> By the same logic, this is not much of a burden on the high-res timer
> subsys though.
>
>> and the uncertainty of 10ms fits the permitted range of
>> the original usleep_ranges().
>
>
> Either way this patch is fine with me.
I'd rather not because next will come a checkpatch warrior and I will
have to convince them why msleep is OK here. And another one, and
another one... :(
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists