On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 06:46:55PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 15.02.2024 18:02, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 02:35:13PM +0100, Alexander Lobakin wrote: > >> From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:39:31 +0100 > >> > >>> According to [1], msleep should be used for large sleeps, such as the > >>> 100-ish ms one in this function. Comply with the guide and use it. > >>> > >>> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> Tested on Qualcomm SC8280XP CRD > >>> --- > >>> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 2 +- > >>> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 3 +-- > >>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c > >>> index 250cf7f40b85..abce6afceb91 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c > >>> @@ -655,7 +655,7 @@ int dw_pcie_wait_for_link(struct dw_pcie *pci) > >>> if (dw_pcie_link_up(pci)) > >>> break; > >>> > >>> - usleep_range(LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MIN, LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MAX); > >>> + msleep(LINK_WAIT_MSLEEP_MAX); > >> > >> Just use fsleep(LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MAX) and let the kernel decide which > >> function to pick. > > IMO, fsleep only makes sense when the argument is variable.. This way, we > can save on bothering the compiler or adding an unnecessary branch I fully agree. Using fsleep() with a constant just looks sloppy (e.g. with that hardcoded usleep range) and hides what is really going on for no good reason. Johan
