> nit: checkpatch should have yelled at you saying that you should
> specify a commit in the format:
>
> commit b3a81b6c4fc6 ("HID: i2c-hid: check if device is there before
> really probing")
>
I will do it, but I did run the checkpatch (with --strict option) and
it didn't complain about anything.
>
> nit: I believe your sign off should be last. It's also unclear why two
> signoffs. Did Radoslaw author it and you changed it? ...or was it
> Co-Developed-by, or ...? You'll probably need to adjust your tags a
> bit depending on the answers.
>
Yes, we've discussed this patch together and the original
investigation was done by Rad.
> Having both ends of the usleep be 400 is iffy. In this case it's at
> probe time so I wonder if udelay() is better? If not, maybe give at
> least _some_ margin?
>
>
> > + } while (tries-- > 0 && ret < 0);
>
According to Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst:
" SLEEPING FOR ~USECS OR SMALL MSECS ( 10us - 20ms):
* Use usleep_range"
It was also pointed out by checkpath (when I initially used msleep).
I think giving some margin (eg. 400,500) would be ok.
> I'm not a huge fan of having to check "tries" and "ret" twice.
> Personally I'd rather see a "while (true)" loop and test the condition
> once to break out. AKA:
>
> while (true) {
> ret = i2c_...
> tries--;
> if (tries == 0 || ret >= 0)
> break;
> udelay(400);
> }
>
> ...if you feel very strongly about the way you have coded it, though,
> I won't stand in your way.
I don't have emotional bond to this code ;), thanks.
>
> Pretty much all my comments are just nits and, since I'm not the
> maintainer here, my opinion is just an opinion. I'd wait at least a
> little while for the maintainers to comment before posting v2. I'm
> happy to give a Reviewed-by tag when some of the nits are fixed.
>
> -Doug
Thank you Doug for all your input.
Best regards,
Lukasz
