On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 06:15:38PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> Both delays are at the lower end of where the use of usleep_range
> is recommended. However as both udelay's occur in loops I think it
> makes sense to replace them with sleeping equivalents to avoid
> longer busy-waits.
>
> Signed
Both delays are at the lower end of where the use of usleep_range
is recommended. However as both udelay's occur in loops I think it
makes sense to replace them with sleeping equivalents to avoid
longer busy-waits.
Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit
---
drivers/usb/chipidea/core.c | 2 +-
drivers/us
