From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Antipov Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay() Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:05:02 +0400 Message-ID: <4EF1D97E.3000201@linaro.org> References: <4EF18310.6080801@linaro.org> <4EF1C230.6060005@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:52346 "EHLO mail-ww0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751568Ab1LUNE2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:04:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4EF1C230.6060005@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Sujit Reddy Thumma Cc: linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/21/2011 03:25 PM, Sujit Reddy Thumma wrote: > I have posted similar patch some time back. > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.msm/2119. > > Would you like to comment on that? - I believe we should forget about jiffies, HZ and other similar obsolete timekeeping stuff; - I have no ideas where did you get 'most typical' 20 ms. MMC subsystem uses mmc_delay() with two compile-time fixed values 1 and 10 ms, with the only exception of card-dependent sleep/awake timeout. I was unable to find a table with typical values, but it's rounded up to >= 1 ms anyway. Dmitry