Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] iio: proximity: rfd77402: Use kernel helper for result polling

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 08:58:07PM +0530, Shrikant wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 3:14 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 10:26:04PM +0530, Shrikant wrote:

...

> > > > > +                              10 * USEC_PER_MSEC,
> > > > > +                              10 * 10 * USEC_PER_MSEC,
> > > >
> > > > This makes sleep shorter by 2. Why?
> > > I have considered the timeout values from the RFD77402 datasheet.
> > > The timeout values mentioned in section 3.1.1 Single Measure are as below:
> > > 1. Every Status Check = 10ms
> > > 2. Whole Flow = 100 ms
> >
> > So, you should do this in a separate change explaining this.
> In that case, I can add a small preparatory patch before the
> “Use kernel helper for result polling” patch to adjust the
> polling interval according to the datasheet.
> 
> This would mean changing the existing polling loop, for example:
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/proximity/rfd77402.c b/drivers/iio/proximity/rfd77402.c
> index 69cc1505b964..3e14660a4bb1 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/proximity/rfd77402.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/proximity/rfd77402.c
> @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ static int rfd77402_measure(struct i2c_client *client)
>                         goto err;
>                 if (ret & RFD77402_ICSR_RESULT)
>                         break;
> -               msleep(20);
> +               msleep(10);
>         }
> 
>         if (tries < 0) {
> 
> However, this change would then be removed in the very next patch
> when the polling loop is replaced by read_poll_timeout().I just want
> to confirm that this temporary change–then–removal is acceptable?

Yes. These two will be quite different semantically.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko