Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:41:41 +0000 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: madera: Allow more time for hardware reset |
| |
On Wed, 08 Jan 2020, Charles Keepax wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 02:27:42PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 06 Jan 2020, Charles Keepax wrote: > > > > > Both manual and power on resets have a brief period where the chip will > > > not be accessible immediately afterwards. Extend the time allowed for > > > this from a minimum of 1mS to 2mS based on newer evaluation of the > > > hardware and ensure this reset happens in all reset conditions. Whilst > > > making the change also remove the redundant NULL checks in the reset > > > functions as the GPIO functions already check for this. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/mfd/madera-core.c | 18 ++++++++++-------- > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/madera-core.c b/drivers/mfd/madera-core.c > > > index a8cfadc1fc01e..f41ce408259fb 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/mfd/madera-core.c > > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/madera-core.c > > > @@ -238,6 +238,11 @@ static int madera_wait_for_boot(struct madera *madera) > > > return ret; > > > } > > > > > > +static inline void madera_reset_delay(void) > > > +{ > > > + usleep_range(2000, 3000); > > > +} > > > > Hmm ... We usually shy away from abstraction for the sake of > > abstraction. What's preventing you from using the preferred method of > > simply calling the abstracted function from each of the call-sites? > > > > I could understand (a little) if you needed to frequently change these > > values, since changing them in once place is obviously simpler than > > changing them in 3, but even then it's marginal. > > > > I don't mind manually inline it, we don't plan on changing the > values very often certainly. It really was just to avoid future > bugs if someone adds a new place that needs the delay or does > indeed change the delay. Would you mind if I used a define for > the time instead, if I am manually inlining? That keeps the same > single place to update, but without the extra function.
That would be my preference, yes.
-- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
| |