[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231024203719.bbk7g4q7e4mzar36@zenone.zhora.eu>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 22:37:19 +0200
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
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
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.
you know this better than me :-)
If you say that a delay is not necessary, then I'm also fine.
In any case, we are in probe and I don't think it's time
critical, so that a little delay wouldn't hurt and make everyone
happy.
Either way I'm fine as long as you use the correct sleeping
function.
Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists