From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eduardo Valentin Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] ARM: OMAP3+: PM: VP: ensure VP is idle before disable Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:51:57 +0300 Message-ID: <20120521145157.GA7923@besouro> References: <1337365122-702-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <20120519095237.GA26761@besouro> Reply-To: eduardo.valentin@ti.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: "Menon, Nishanth" Cc: Kevin Hilman , Tony Lindgren , eduardo.valentin@ti.com, Wenbiao Wang , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 08:36:35AM -0500, ext Nishanth Menon wrote: > Sat, May 19, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Eduardo Valentin > wrote: > > > > > > I guess it is time to properly document this increasing busy loop delay.. > > As it is getting closer to ms scale.. > Does the following sound good? > /* Maximum time for Voltage Processor to enter or exit idle */ Sounds way better :-). If you have an estimation of how long it takes in the average case, it might help. But I am OK already with the above, in case you don't have the estimation. > > Regards, > Nishanth Menon Cheers, -- Eduardo Valentin