From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: caesar.upstream@gmail.com (Caesar Wang)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:27:26 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 4/9] thermal: rockchip: handle the power sequence for
 tsadc controller
In-Reply-To: <20160428150432.GA20009@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1460950562-20652-1-git-send-email-wxt@rock-chips.com>
 <1460950562-20652-5-git-send-email-wxt@rock-chips.com>
 <20160427234818.GB2590@localhost.localdomain> <57216C65.5040501@gmail.com>
 <20160428150432.GA20009@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <57280C8E.5080406@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



? 2016?04?28? 23:04, Eduardo Valentin ??:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 09:50:29AM +0800, Caesar Wang wrote:
>>
>> ? 2016?04?28? 07:48, Eduardo Valentin ??:
>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:35:56AM +0800, Caesar Wang wrote:
>>>> +		regmap_write(grf, GRF_TSADC_TESTBIT_L, GRF_TSADC_TSEN_PD_ON);
>>>> +		mdelay(10);
>>>> +		regmap_write(grf, GRF_TSADC_TESTBIT_L, GRF_TSADC_TSEN_PD_OFF);
>>>> +		udelay(100); /* The spec note says at least 15 us */
>>>> +		regmap_write(grf, GRF_SARADC_TESTBIT, GRF_SARADC_TESTBIT_ON);
>>>> +		regmap_write(grf, GRF_TSADC_TESTBIT_H, GRF_TSADC_TESTBIT_H_ON);
>>>> +		udelay(200); /* The spec note says at least 90 us */
>>> Does it make sense to use usleep_range() instead?
>> I think so in the past, but I'm digging into the the udelay/usleep for
>> kernel.
> What do you mean by in the past? timekeeping doc still recommends the
> range 10us to 20ms for usleep_range()
>
>> In general,
>>
>> udelay < 10us ~100us
>> mdelay > 1m, <1000ms/HZ
>> usleep_range(min,max) > 100us, <20ms
> even here, your udelays could be replaced by usleep_range().
>
> Any particular reason you believe spining is better than sleeping in
> your case?
>
>> msleep > 20ms,  < 1000ms
>>
>> So the udelay is suit for tsadc power sequence.
>> ---
>>
>>
>> Also,  we have used the mdelay(10), so it doesn't matter if use the udelay.
>> After all the udelay is stable than the usleep_range.
> What do you mean udelay is stable than usleep_range? usleep_range will
> give the opportunity to the scheduler to coalesce wakeups. udelay is a
> busyloop spin. Besides, I am not sure the current situation, but
> busylooping may be affected by cpu frequency.

Okay, thanks for pointing out.

Send the fixes patch on https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8999971/

Thank you!


-Caesar
>
>> -Caesar
>>
>>> 1.9.1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Caesar
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-rockchip mailing list
> Linux-rockchip at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip


-- 
Thanks,
Caesar