On Thu, 26 Jun 2025, Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jani, > > Thanks for your patch! > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 16:51, Jani Nikula <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sometimes it's necessary to poll with long sleeps, and the accuracy of >> usleep_range() is overkill. Use the flexible sleep helper fsleep() for >> sleeping in the read_poll_timeout() family of macros to automatically >> choose the appropriate method of waiting. >> >> Functionally there are a few consequences for existing users: >> >> - 10 us and shorter sleeps will use usleep() instead of > > s/usleep/udelay/.
D'oh! > >> usleep_range(). Presumably this will not be an issue. > > Note that udelay() does not sleep, but loops. Quite right. IIUC this is because for short delays it's more efficient. BR, Jani. > >> >> - When it leads to a slack of less than 25%, msleep() will be used >> instead of usleep_range(). Presumably this will not be an issue, given >> the sleeps will be longer in this case. >> >> - Otherwise, the usleep_range() slack gets switched from the begin of >> the range to the end of the range, i.e. [sleep/2+1..sleep] -> >> [sleep..sleep+sleep/2]. In theory, this could be an issue in some >> cases, but difficult to determine before this hits the real world. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]> > >> Not really sure who to Cc, given MAINTAINERS doesn't match this. Adding >> some past committers. > > Oh well ;-) > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert -- Jani Nikula, Intel
