On 05/08/2018 10:04 PM, J Freyensee wrote:
I'm just curious why it was decided to still use tpm_msleep() here instead of usleep_range() which was used in the 2nd patch.do { - tpm_msleep(TPM_POLL_SLEEP); + tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL);
TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL is in msec i.e. 1 msec and usleep_range() is used only when timeout is needed in usecs.
Otherwise, Acked-by: Jay Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks !! Thanks & Regards, - Nayna