On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 02:50:56PM GMT, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 01/10/2024 09:43, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > On 9/27/24 17:28, Jon Hunter wrote: > > > On 25/09/2024 14:40, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > All in all, I wonder if we wouldn't be better off increasing these > > > > delays to the point where we can use usleep_range(). That will make > > > > the overall lane bringup slightly longer (though it should still be well > > > > below 1ms, so hardly noticeable from a user's perspective) but has the > > > > benefit of not blocking the CPU during this time. > > > > > > Yes we can certainly increase the delay and use usleep_range() as you > > > prefer. Let us know what you would recommend here. > > > > Use of usleep_range() would be definitely preferrable. > > Thanks for the feedback. > > Thierry, let us know whether we should keep the 50/500ns ndelay() or switch > to 10-20us usleep_range() as per the kernel documentation for less than 10us > it says the typical guidance is to use udelay. Let's go with the usleep_range() if it works. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
