From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A1801C9DFC; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:02:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.12 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728568954; cv=none; b=j6R/+HDjnvwF89PDRRpV1cGA7RvwmbN/95Jix7R2D++uBHo6zLi8xCMJaFE0PuDmCeHrXDbdZzVH3P70uzW626JrEeNnN07hMGUZ10FN37GnLZLCLvj9hwZ91KoiRGhiL02DCChaUUJvPy4PgASsyPn4ifRcEodTJtvGbVj1i/Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728568954; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qc+c7upa6u//iAYuKNiHURLkJCG0QR3yUpeIWwmRxfs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=C7fGkIgYPtIq7/rEoXCWnqkQtuYWGFmmP++tvNLvbg3heqiaWMEmY8nizdEohgfnW7fYa9ZjV18Wd5FmeikInoiap/A7Bo5by3SgYqD8JdkpF1RGYdpi+7fVxKAqmF2y5LEUitVarXq1cRk457axfhCKbrQ9u0/Z8jaZ7GPsc6U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=agTfd7tU; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.12 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="agTfd7tU" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1728568954; x=1760104954; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=qc+c7upa6u//iAYuKNiHURLkJCG0QR3yUpeIWwmRxfs=; b=agTfd7tUFnTXB7p2vFtehE/wTwRpvEzZhlm2Sc7PqOq3zorNeiuszBr8 +61BGgsAxXJdY5HY9SNqblTaQhQMO+aR7VRHcietgGYviY3JganDkoj7R KtvpsX1lQd9dvnqAd071FOSBrZa3ND6v3UjHeaI1UPa+8khpplRIZREfo O4zN2ZLFpiK4S0z4iXP/wxggGWXbw8wDhVeqwCoUC7xfnhJr0vCrZp2zP fj2zJsGt9viOQBbNY0TrSwZH2vmwAoSYMIBDun8F7o19xRoQ7Uzb4LlWV vOh07NvikqjcouLUusXJEzpChw8sCJfCRJkp6lR+EjYqB8vRTqNLdszX7 Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: tZUlWOMFSxmcnWsyhBwcbQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: nzjENuDCTMiiAWwT4EVh6A== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11220"; a="31822812" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,193,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="31822812" Received: from orviesa005.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.145]) by fmvoesa106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Oct 2024 07:00:48 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: xnRaNaP4Ski0hc2pAhvUgg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: NQKHUR6LQreeR3iTAug+TA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,193,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="81401717" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.154]) by orviesa005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Oct 2024 07:00:45 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98) (envelope-from ) id 1sytic-00000001YTH-2qBL; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 17:00:42 +0300 Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 17:00:42 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Tomi Valkeinen Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Sakari Ailus , Hans Verkuil , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jai Luthra Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] media: i2c: ds90ub960: Reduce sleep in ub960_rxport_wait_locks() Message-ID: References: <20241004-ub9xx-fixes-v1-0-e30a4633c786@ideasonboard.com> <20241004-ub9xx-fixes-v1-10-e30a4633c786@ideasonboard.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241004-ub9xx-fixes-v1-10-e30a4633c786@ideasonboard.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 05:46:41PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > We currently sleep for 50 ms at the end of each iteration in > ub960_rxport_wait_locks(). This feels a bit excessive, especially as we > always do at least two loops, so there's always at least one sleep, even > if we already have a stable lock. > > Change the sleep to 10 ms. ... > - msleep(50); > + fsleep(10 * 1000); USEC_PER_MSEC Can also a comment be added on top of this call to explain the choice? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko