On Friday 22 January 2016 05:35 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:

Hello Laxman,

On 01/22/2016 06:41 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:

quoted

On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:

quoted

      RTC_SEC = 0,

@@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct 

max77686_rtc_info *info,
                  __func__, ret, data);
      else {
          /* Minimum 16ms delay required before RTC update. */
-        msleep(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY);
+        usleep_range(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY,
+                 MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY * 2);
      }

Instead of making usleep_range(16000, 32000), can we make small range as
usleep_range(16000, 17000)?

Yes, I also didn't know how to make the delay smaller. If I do for 
example

usleep_range(delay, delay + 10000), then the 10000 delta would be too big
for max77802 (50 times the minimum required 200 delay).

So I used delay * 2 for two reasons:

1) That way is generic enough and can work for any delay

2) My understanding is that most of times the delay should be precise and
   is not that bad if sometimes the delay is the worst case (2 * X) since
   after all the delay is the minimum required.

I also see that usleep_range(X, X * 2) is a used pattern across the 
kernel.

OK, fine to me here.

Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.