On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 12:22:36PM +0100, Köry Maincent wrote:
> Thanks for your review!
>
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 23:41:55 +0100
> Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > +struct pd692x0_msg {
> > > + struct pd692x0_msg_content content;
> > > + u16 delay_recv;
> > > +};
> >
> > > + if (msg->delay_recv)
> > > + msleep(msg->delay_recv);
> > > + else
> > > + msleep(30);
> >
> > > + if (msg->delay_recv)
> > > + msleep(msg->delay_recv);
> > > + else
> > > + msleep(30);
> >
> > > + if (msg->delay_recv)
> > > + msleep(msg->delay_recv);
> > > + else
> > > + msleep(30);
> > > +
> >
> > As far as i can see with a quick search, nothing ever sets delay_recv?
> >
> > Andrew
>
> In fact I wrote the driver taking into account that there are two commands (save
> and restore) that need a different delay response. As currently we do not
> support them I can indeed drop it for now and add it back when I will add their
> support.
When you add it back, maybe just arrange for delay_recv to be set to
30?
Andrew
