From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Liam Girdwood Subject: Re: [PATCH] ucm: change msleep to usleep Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:12:52 +0100 Message-ID: <4E4E8B84.1070700@ti.com> References: <20110819072217.4790.29949.stgit@localhost6.localdomain6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bear.ext.ti.com (bear.ext.ti.com [192.94.94.41]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1657C10380B for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:13:05 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: 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: Lu Guanqun Cc: Takashi Iwai , ALSA List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On 19/08/11 08:40, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:22:17 +0800, > Lu Guanqun wrote: >> >> In file src/ucm/parser.c: >> if (strcmp(cmd, "usleep") == 0) { >> string `usleep' is compared, however, in the comment and example conf file, >> `msleep' is used, it's better to unify them all. > > Don't we scale the value appropriately (although it's just a demo)? > msleep is more useful here for pop prevention, but I suppose usleep could be useful too. Could you redo to support both usleep and msleep ? Thanks Liam