Dear Aniroop Mathur Please see the acknowledgement below. Best regards Albert (Xu) ZHANG BST/ESA3.1 Tel. +86(21)2218-1283 -----Original Message----- From: Aniroop Mathur [mailto:a.mathur@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 6:34 PM To: ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-input@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@xxxxxxxxx>; SAMUEL SEQUEIRA <s.samuel@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Rahul Mahale <r.mahale@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: RE: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs Dear Mr. Albert Zhang, Thank you for your confirmation! Yes, I think usleep_range(2000, 2100) is better than usleep_range(2000, 2000) because delta time will allow the kernel to batch the processes who need to wake up around same time and generate single interrupt to wake up all of them. So this would be beneficial from power saving point of view. -- Best Regards, Aniroop Mathur --------- Original Message --------- Sender : ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date : 2016-12-01 11:19 (GMT+5:30) Title : RE: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs Hello Aniroop Mathur Thank you for your mail. We have used the usleep_range() function in our new product's driver and the verification result is working. Your patch for bma150 is definitely working for sure. Just one question need your answer. To replace the msleep(2), is usleep_range(2000, 2100) better than usleep_range(2000, 2000) ? Best regards Albert (Xu) ZHANG BST/ESA3.1 -----Original Message----- From: mathur.aniroop@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:mathur.aniroop@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Aniroop Mathur Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 12:36 AM To: ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-input@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@xxxxxxxxx>; s.samuel@xxxxxxxxxxx; r.mahale@xxxxxxxxxxx; Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs Hello Mr. Albert Zhang, I am Aniroop Mathur from Samsung R&D Institute, India. I have submitted one patch as below for review to Linux Open Source. The problem is that we do not have the hardware available with us to test it and we would like to test it before actually applying it. As you are the author of this driver, so I would like to request you if you could help to test this patch or provide us the contact points of individuals who could support to get this patch tested? Thank you! BR, Aniroop Mathur On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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) > This is not the desired behaviour for many cases like device resume time, > device suspend time, device enable time, etc. > Thus, change msleep to usleep_range for precise wakeups. > > Signed-off-by: Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@xxxxxxxxxxx> Acked by: Albert Zhang <xu.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/input/misc/bma150.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c > index 2124390..1fa8537 100644 > --- a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c > +++ b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c > @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int bma150_set_mode(struct bma150_data *bma150, u8 mode) > return error; > > if (mode == BMA150_MODE_NORMAL) > - msleep(2); > + usleep_range(2000, 2100); > > bma150->mode = mode; > return 0; > @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ static int bma150_soft_reset(struct bma150_data *bma150) > if (error) > return error; > > - msleep(2); > + usleep_range(2000, 2100); > return 0; > } > > -- > 2.6.2 > ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��)��^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
