>From this page (https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt): "msleep(1~20) may not do what the caller intends, and will often sleep longer (~20 ms actual sleep for any value given in the 1~20ms range). In many cases this is not the desired behavior." The call to msleep in this code may cause a much longer sleep. On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> Signed-off-by: Son Le <sonle.hut@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/staging/nokia_h4p/nokia_core.c | 2 +- >> drivers/staging/nokia_h4p/nokia_fw-csr.c | 2 +- >> drivers/staging/nokia_h4p/nokia_uart.c | 2 +- >> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/nokia_h4p/nokia_core.c b/drivers/staging/nokia_h4p/nokia_core.c >> index 775e1d0..bab01e9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/nokia_h4p/nokia_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/nokia_h4p/nokia_core.c >> @@ -724,7 +724,7 @@ static int hci_h4p_reset(struct hci_h4p_info *info) >> >> gpio_set_value(info->reset_gpio, 0); >> gpio_set_value(info->bt_wakeup_gpio, 1); >> - msleep(10); >> + usleep_range(10000, 10500); >> > > I don't see how new code is superior to the old one. If checkpatch > warns about this, perhaps checkpatch should be fixed? > > Pavel > -- > (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek > (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
