Hi Stefan,
On 15/09/2021 06:21, Stefan Wahren wrote:
Hi,
Am 14.09.21 um 23:35 schrieb Gaston Gonzalez:
usleep_range() should be used instead of sleep() when sleepings range
from 10 us to 20 ms, [1].
Reported by checkpatch.pl
[1] Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
---
drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
index b25369a13452..0214ae37e01f 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
@@ -824,7 +824,7 @@ vchiq_bulk_transmit(unsigned int handle, const void *data, unsigned int size,
if (status != VCHIQ_RETRY)
break;
- msleep(1);
+ usleep_range(1000, 1100);
from my understanding the usage of usleep_range() and hrtimers isn't
necessary here. The intention is to sleep a little bit and not "exactly"
1 ms.
@Phil Elwell: what is your opinion?
Exactly - the aim is just to stop it spinning.
Phil
