Hi,
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
From f447d78db65c6675e69466e8ed08364ff065ac08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dmitry Antipov <dmitry.anti...@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.
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
