Hello Lee,
Thanks a lot for your feedback.
On 09/17/2014 06:23 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>
>> mutex_lock(&ec_dev->lock);
>> ret = ec_dev->cmd_xfer(ec_dev, msg);
>> + if (msg->result == EC_RES_IN_PROGRESS) {
>> + int i;
>> + struct cros_ec_command status_msg;
>> + struct ec_response_get_comms_status status;
>> +
>> + status_msg.version = 0;
>> + status_msg.command = EC_CMD_GET_COMMS_STATUS;
>> + status_msg.outdata = NULL;
>> + status_msg.outsize = 0;
>> + status_msg.indata = (uint8_t *)&status;
>> + status_msg.insize = sizeof(status);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Query the EC's status until it's no longer busy or
>> + * we encounter an error.
>> + */
>> + for (i = 0; i < EC_COMMAND_RETRIES; i++) {
>> + usleep_range(EC_RETRY_DELAY_MS, EC_RETRY_DELAY_MS + 1);
>
> Remove the EC_RETRY_DELAY_MS define and place the values in raw.
>
Ok, will do.
> You're now sleeping for 10us. Did you test the changes?
>
Duh, I must had been sleepy since I thought about changing the define but I
completely missed... which proves your point that raw values are more explicit
than using a define here.
Yes, I'm testing the changes and making sure that it does not add any
regression but I was not able to reproduce the case when an EC command result
is IN_PROGRESS. I'll investigate further on how to properly test that branch
before posting v4.
Best regards,
Javier
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
