From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>
To: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
Cc: 3chas3@gmail.com, linux-atm-general@lists.sourceforge.net,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] atm: idt77252: Replace mdelay with usleep_range in idt77252_preset
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 03:00:41 +0000 (GMT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.21.1802070237090.20018@eddie.linux-mips.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1516938138-27259-1-git-send-email-baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/atm/idt77252.c b/drivers/atm/idt77252.c
> index 0277f36..cea4bf2 100644
> --- a/drivers/atm/idt77252.c
> +++ b/drivers/atm/idt77252.c
> @@ -3563,7 +3563,7 @@ static int idt77252_preset(struct idt77252_dev *card)
>
> /* Software reset */
> writel(SAR_CFG_SWRST, SAR_REG_CFG);
> - mdelay(1);
> + usleep_range(500, 1000);
> writel(0, SAR_REG_CFG);
>
> IPRINTK("%s: Software resetted.\n", card->name);
This is only called from the driver's ->probe method, so it looks to me
indeed safe to sleep here. A similar, more extensive clean-up seems due
for 77252 older brother's driver nicstar.c.
Out of curiosity I have looked up the SAR manual and it requires the
SWRST bit to be asserted for at least 2 PCI clock cycles for the reset to
be valid, so having the lower bound of .5ms still looks completely safe if
not an overkill to me for real world applications where PCI is driven in
the MHz clock range.
Reviewed-by: Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@linux-mips.org>
Maciej
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-07 3:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-26 3:42 [PATCH] atm: idt77252: Replace mdelay with usleep_range in idt77252_preset Jia-Ju Bai
2018-02-07 3:00 ` Maciej W. Rozycki [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.2.21.1802070237090.20018@eddie.linux-mips.org \
--to=macro@linux-mips.org \
--cc=3chas3@gmail.com \
--cc=baijiaju1990@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-atm-general@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).