From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:48:21 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 04/18] power: ab8500_fg: Replace msleep() with usleep_range() for greater accuracy In-Reply-To: <1358183857.19400.13.camel@joe-AO722> References: <1357909986-9262-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1357909986-9262-5-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1358183857.19400.13.camel@joe-AO722> Message-ID: <20130115084821.GT12385@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 13:12 +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > Doing so provides a greater degree of accuracy when dealing with > > time-frames between 1us and 20ms. msleep() is only accurate for > > wake-ups greater than 20ms. > [] > > diff --git a/drivers/power/ab8500_fg.c b/drivers/power/ab8500_fg.c > [] > > @@ -956,7 +956,7 @@ static int ab8500_fg_load_comp_volt_to_capacity(struct ab8500_fg *di) > > do { > > vbat += ab8500_fg_bat_voltage(di); > > i++; > > - msleep(5); > > + usleep_range(5000, 5001); > > If you're going to give a range that small > you might as well use usleep instead. > > Otherwise, add some tolerance to allow any > other coalesced wakeup to occur. I can't increase the tolerance, as I don't know how that would effect the running of the system, and the person who would know is off on parental leave. What I can tell you is we're only using usleep_range() because there is no usleep in the kernel. At least that's what we've been led to believe: Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt: - Why is there no "usleep" / What is a good range? Since usleep_range is built on top of hrtimers, the wakeup will be very precise (ish), thus a simple usleep function would likely introduce a large number of undesired interrupts. -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog