Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:22:12 +0200 (EET) | From | Aaro Koskinen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay() |
| |
Hi,
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Dmitry Antipov wrote: > From f447d78db65c6675e69466e8ed08364ff065ac08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Dmitry Antipov <dmitry.antipov@linaro.org> > Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:51:03 +0400 > Subject: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay() > > ---
Shouldn't you add a proper patch description and a signed-off-by line?
> drivers/mmc/core/core.h | 8 ++------ > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.h b/drivers/mmc/core/core.h > index 14664f1..a77851e 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.h > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.h > @@ -47,12 +47,8 @@ void mmc_power_off(struct mmc_host *host); > > static inline void mmc_delay(unsigned int ms) > { > - if (ms < 1000 / HZ) { > - cond_resched(); > - mdelay(ms); > - } else { > - msleep(ms); > - } > + unsigned long us = ms * USEC_PER_MSEC; > + usleep_range(us, us + 1000); > }
Anyway, I think the change is good. On systems with multiple MMC devices the boot/probe can spend 100-200 ms alone just doing busylooping delays. I think e.g. in mmc_rescan() the code uses frequently mmc_delay(10).
> void mmc_rescan(struct work_struct *work); > -- > 1.7.7.4
A.
| |