On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On 01/12/2017 05:21 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: >> >> the delays here are in the 10 to 20ms range so msleep() will do - no >> need to burden the highres timer subsystem. >> >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> Problem found by coccinelle script >> >> While msleep(10) has a worst case uncertainty of 10ms (on HZ=100 systems) >> this seems ok here as the delays are not called frequently (init and >> reset functions) > > > By the same logic, this is not much of a burden on the high-res timer > subsys though. > >> and the uncertainty of 10ms fits the permitted range of >> the original usleep_ranges(). > > > Either way this patch is fine with me. I'd rather not because next will come a checkpatch warrior and I will have to convince them why msleep is OK here. And another one, and another one... :( Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
