On 25/10/23 09:37, Andi Shyti wrote:
> 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.
My particular hardware doesn't need it but for this to be generally
usable I think it is necessary to provide the capability for some kind
of hardware specific reset-duration. I'll look at fsleep() for v4 (or
say why I've stuck with usleep_range() in the changelog).
> Andi
