From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Ensure we delay long enough for WM8994 FLL to lock when starting Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 01:44:54 +0100 Message-ID: <20110704004453.GA1178@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1309566922-3177-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <032501cc39dd$489c24d0$d9d46e70$@com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com (opensource.wolfsonmicro.com [80.75.67.52]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3DF424B9A for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 02:51:26 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <032501cc39dd$489c24d0$d9d46e70$@com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Sangbeom Kim Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, 'Liam Girdwood' List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 08:59:45AM +0900, Sangbeom Kim wrote: > Saturday, July 02, 2011 9:35 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > This delay is very conservative. > What's the meaning of conservative? In this context it means safe. > It means 5ms delay long enough? > or at least, FLL lock time should be ensured 5ms? Yes, the 5ms should be more than enough time for the FLL to lock - in most situations the time taken to do the register writes surrounding enabling and then using the FLL are sufficient to cover the startup time.