[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4b548124-d1d5-4746-a5bd-03757013282d@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 20:13:55 +0000
From: Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
CC: "gregory.clement@...tlin.com" <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org"
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"conor+dt@...nel.org" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] i2c: mv64xxx: add an optional reset-gpios property
On 25/10/23 08:18, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> as you are working on the v4...
>
> ...
>
>> + if (drv_data->reset_gpio) {
>> + usleep_range(reset_duration, reset_duration + 10);
> I'm not against this, but it's not optimal unless we know more or
> less what to expect from reset_duration.
>
> Do we have a rough idea of what reset_duration is? If we don't
> then you could consider using a generic "fsleep(reset_duration);"
> Would it work?
flseep() would work for me. All of the devices I'm testing with seem to
be fine with a very short reset pulse, they'd probably be fine with no
delay at all.
>
> Rest looks good.
>
> Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists