On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 03:56:24AM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 16:09 Mon 06 Feb , Mark Brown wrote: > > > + - udelay: half clock cycle time in us (may depend on each platform) > > > + udelay = <2>; /* ~100 kHz */ > > Why not specify this in kHz and do the conversion in the driver? It > > seems a more intuitive thing to be specifying. I appreciate that the > > platform data used udelay but it seems an entirely unintuitive thing > > from a user point of view even if it's what the implementation wants. > because it's not accurate and on some platform you need to adapt it so we keep > the udelay Then you should clarify that in the documentation, it's not the cycle time but the delay between GPIO operations which isn't quite the same thing.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
