[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZsxU0kA4lxW7ZHi9@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:11:30 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@...il.com>
Cc: jic23@...nel.org, lars@...afoo.de, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, ang.iglesiasg@...il.com,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, biju.das.jz@...renesas.com,
javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com, semen.protsenko@...aro.org,
579lpy@...il.com, ak@...klinger.de, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] iio: pressure: bmp280: Add support for bmp280
soft reset
On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 01:16:14PM +0200, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 10:13:57PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 08:17:09PM +0200, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
...
> > > + usleep_range(data->start_up_time, data->start_up_time + 500);
> >
> > Seems long enough to warrant the comment. Also, why not fsleep()?
>
> The datasheet of the sensor, and the published API from Bosch [1]
> require the startup_time for this procedure, it's not something that
> came up from my mind. That's why I didn't add any comment.
The comment usually needed on the basis of how long we have to sleep.
To me ~1ms warrants that as it's long enough timeout on modern (GHz
frequency range) CPUs.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists