Hi,
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
From f447d78db65c6675e69466e8ed08364ff065ac08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dmitry Antipov dmitry.antipov@linaro.org Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:51:03 +0400 Subject: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay()
Shouldn't you add a proper patch description and a signed-off-by line?
drivers/mmc/core/core.h | 8 ++------ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.h b/drivers/mmc/core/core.h index 14664f1..a77851e 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.h +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.h @@ -47,12 +47,8 @@ void mmc_power_off(struct mmc_host *host);
static inline void mmc_delay(unsigned int ms) {
- if (ms < 1000 / HZ) {
cond_resched();mdelay(ms);- } else {
msleep(ms);- }
- unsigned long us = ms * USEC_PER_MSEC;
- usleep_range(us, us + 1000);
}
Anyway, I think the change is good. On systems with multiple MMC devices the boot/probe can spend 100-200 ms alone just doing busylooping delays. I think e.g. in mmc_rescan() the code uses frequently mmc_delay(10).
void mmc_rescan(struct work_struct *work);
1.7.7.4
A.