Hi, On Mon, 17 Dec 2018, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 08:57:43AM -0800, Amir Mahdi Ghorbanian wrote:@@ -626,7 +628,7 @@ static irqreturn_t nvec_interrupt(int irq, void *dev) break; case 2: /* first byte after command */ if (status == (I2C_SL_IRQ | RNW | RCVD)) { - udelay(33); + usleep_range(0, 33);Why is this a valid range to sleep for for this device? Have you been able to verify/test this?
oh no, not again. Why does this come up again every half year? This udelay is a workaround for a hw bug which only seldom triggers (if it triggers at all). Secondly, this is in interrupt context, so *sleep timers are no go, afaik.
Marc
