* [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
@ 2016-11-24 16:03 Aniroop Mathur
2016-11-28 16:35 ` Aniroop Mathur
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Aniroop Mathur @ 2016-11-24 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dmitry.torokhov, linux-input, linux-kernel
Cc: aniroop.mathur, s.samuel, r.mahale, Aniroop Mathur
msleep(1~20) may not do what the caller intends, and will often sleep longer.
(~20 ms actual sleep for any value given in the 1~20ms range)
This is not the desired behaviour for many cases like device resume time,
device suspend time, device enable time, etc.
Thus, change msleep to usleep_range for precise wakeups.
Signed-off-by: Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com>
---
drivers/input/misc/bma150.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
index 2124390..1fa8537 100644
--- a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
+++ b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int bma150_set_mode(struct bma150_data *bma150, u8 mode)
return error;
if (mode == BMA150_MODE_NORMAL)
- msleep(2);
+ usleep_range(2000, 2100);
bma150->mode = mode;
return 0;
@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ static int bma150_soft_reset(struct bma150_data *bma150)
if (error)
return error;
- msleep(2);
+ usleep_range(2000, 2100);
return 0;
}
--
2.6.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
2016-11-24 16:03 [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs Aniroop Mathur
@ 2016-11-28 16:35 ` Aniroop Mathur
2016-12-01 5:49 ` ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1)
[not found] ` <CGME20161201054940epcas4p3ad9a27ce7fbfcd94ac71e13180b7fb66@epcas4p3.samsung.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Aniroop Mathur @ 2016-11-28 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xu.zhang, Dmitry Torokhov, linux-input, linux-kernel
Cc: Aniroop Mathur, s.samuel, r.mahale, Aniroop Mathur
Hello Mr. Albert Zhang,
I am Aniroop Mathur from Samsung R&D Institute, India.
I have submitted one patch as below for review to Linux Open Source.
The problem is that we do not have the hardware available with us to
test it and we would like to test it before actually applying it.
As you are the author of this driver, so I would like to request
you if you could help to test this patch or provide us the contact points
of individuals who could support to get this patch tested?
Thank you!
BR,
Aniroop Mathur
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com> wrote:
> msleep(1~20) may not do what the caller intends, and will often sleep longer.
> (~20 ms actual sleep for any value given in the 1~20ms range)
> This is not the desired behaviour for many cases like device resume time,
> device suspend time, device enable time, etc.
> Thus, change msleep to usleep_range for precise wakeups.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com>
> ---
> drivers/input/misc/bma150.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> index 2124390..1fa8537 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int bma150_set_mode(struct bma150_data *bma150, u8 mode)
> return error;
>
> if (mode == BMA150_MODE_NORMAL)
> - msleep(2);
> + usleep_range(2000, 2100);
>
> bma150->mode = mode;
> return 0;
> @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ static int bma150_soft_reset(struct bma150_data *bma150)
> if (error)
> return error;
>
> - msleep(2);
> + usleep_range(2000, 2100);
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.6.2
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
2016-11-28 16:35 ` Aniroop Mathur
@ 2016-12-01 5:49 ` ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1)
[not found] ` <CGME20161201054940epcas4p3ad9a27ce7fbfcd94ac71e13180b7fb66@epcas4p3.samsung.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) @ 2016-12-01 5:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Aniroop Mathur, Dmitry Torokhov, linux-input, linux-kernel
Cc: Aniroop Mathur, s.samuel, r.mahale
Hello Aniroop Mathur
Thank you for your mail.
We have used the usleep_range() function in our new product's driver and the verification result is working.
Your patch for bma150 is definitely working for sure.
Just one question need your answer.
To replace the msleep(2), is usleep_range(2000, 2100) better than usleep_range(2000, 2000) ?
Best regards
Albert (Xu) ZHANG
BST/ESA3.1
-----Original Message-----
From: mathur.aniroop@gmail.com [mailto:mathur.aniroop@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aniroop Mathur
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 12:36 AM
To: ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@cn.bosch.com>; Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>; linux-input@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@gmail.com>; s.samuel@samsung.com; r.mahale@samsung.com; Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
Hello Mr. Albert Zhang,
I am Aniroop Mathur from Samsung R&D Institute, India.
I have submitted one patch as below for review to Linux Open Source.
The problem is that we do not have the hardware available with us to
test it and we would like to test it before actually applying it.
As you are the author of this driver, so I would like to request
you if you could help to test this patch or provide us the contact points
of individuals who could support to get this patch tested?
Thank you!
BR,
Aniroop Mathur
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com> wrote:
> msleep(1~20) may not do what the caller intends, and will often sleep longer.
> (~20 ms actual sleep for any value given in the 1~20ms range)
> This is not the desired behaviour for many cases like device resume time,
> device suspend time, device enable time, etc.
> Thus, change msleep to usleep_range for precise wakeups.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com>
> ---
> drivers/input/misc/bma150.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> index 2124390..1fa8537 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int bma150_set_mode(struct bma150_data *bma150, u8 mode)
> return error;
>
> if (mode == BMA150_MODE_NORMAL)
> - msleep(2);
> + usleep_range(2000, 2100);
>
> bma150->mode = mode;
> return 0;
> @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ static int bma150_soft_reset(struct bma150_data *bma150)
> if (error)
> return error;
>
> - msleep(2);
> + usleep_range(2000, 2100);
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.6.2
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* RE: RE: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
[not found] ` <CGME20161201054940epcas4p3ad9a27ce7fbfcd94ac71e13180b7fb66@epcas4p3.samsung.com>
@ 2016-12-01 10:34 ` Aniroop Mathur
2016-12-01 11:44 ` ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1)
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Aniroop Mathur @ 2016-12-01 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ZHANG Xu (BST, Dmitry Torokhov, linux-input, linux-kernel
Cc: Aniroop Mathur, SAMUEL SEQUEIRA, Rahul Mahale
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3873 bytes --]
Dear Mr. Albert Zhang,
Thank you for your confirmation!
Yes, I think usleep_range(2000, 2100) is better than usleep_range(2000, 2000)
because delta time will allow the kernel to batch the processes who need to
wake up around same time and generate single interrupt to wake up all of them.
So this would be beneficial from power saving point of view.
--
Best Regards,
Aniroop Mathur
--------- Original Message ---------
Sender : ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@cn.bosch.com>
Date : 2016-12-01 11:19 (GMT+5:30)
Title : RE: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
Hello Aniroop Mathur
Thank you for your mail.
We have used the usleep_range() function in our new product's driver and the verification result is working.
Your patch for bma150 is definitely working for sure.
Just one question need your answer.
To replace the msleep(2), is usleep_range(2000, 2100) better than usleep_range(2000, 2000) ?
Best regards
Albert (Xu) ZHANG
BST/ESA3.1
-----Original Message-----
From: mathur.aniroop@gmail.com [mailto:mathur.aniroop@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aniroop Mathur
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 12:36 AM
To: ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@cn.bosch.com>; Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>; linux-input@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@gmail.com>; s.samuel@samsung.com; r.mahale@samsung.com; Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
Hello Mr. Albert Zhang,
I am Aniroop Mathur from Samsung R&D Institute, India.
I have submitted one patch as below for review to Linux Open Source.
The problem is that we do not have the hardware available with us to
test it and we would like to test it before actually applying it.
As you are the author of this driver, so I would like to request
you if you could help to test this patch or provide us the contact points
of individuals who could support to get this patch tested?
Thank you!
BR,
Aniroop Mathur
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com> wrote:
> msleep(1~20) may not do what the caller intends, and will often sleep longer.
> (~20 ms actual sleep for any value given in the 1~20ms range)
> This is not the desired behaviour for many cases like device resume time,
> device suspend time, device enable time, etc.
> Thus, change msleep to usleep_range for precise wakeups.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com>
> ---
> drivers/input/misc/bma150.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> index 2124390..1fa8537 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int bma150_set_mode(struct bma150_data *bma150, u8 mode)
> return error;
>
> if (mode == BMA150_MODE_NORMAL)
> - msleep(2);
> + usleep_range(2000, 2100);
>
> bma150->mode = mode;
> return 0;
> @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ static int bma150_soft_reset(struct bma150_data *bma150)
> if (error)
> return error;
>
> - msleep(2);
> + usleep_range(2000, 2100);
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.6.2
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* RE: RE: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
2016-12-01 10:34 ` Aniroop Mathur
@ 2016-12-01 11:44 ` ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1)
2016-12-01 15:50 ` RE: RE: [Please Apply][PATCH] Input: misc: bma150: " Aniroop Mathur
2016-12-23 5:07 ` RE: [PATCH] Input: " ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1)
2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) @ 2016-12-01 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: a.mathur, Dmitry Torokhov, linux-input, linux-kernel
Cc: Aniroop Mathur, SAMUEL SEQUEIRA, Rahul Mahale
Dear Aniroop Mathur
Got your point.
Thank you for your explanation!
Best regards
Albert (Xu) ZHANG
BST/ESA3.1
-----Original Message-----
From: Aniroop Mathur [mailto:a.mathur@samsung.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 6:34 PM
To: ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@cn.bosch.com>; Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>; linux-input@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@gmail.com>; SAMUEL SEQUEIRA <s.samuel@samsung.com>; Rahul Mahale <r.mahale@samsung.com>
Subject: RE: RE: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
Dear Mr. Albert Zhang,
Thank you for your confirmation!
Yes, I think usleep_range(2000, 2100) is better than usleep_range(2000, 2000)
because delta time will allow the kernel to batch the processes who need to
wake up around same time and generate single interrupt to wake up all of them.
So this would be beneficial from power saving point of view.
--
Best Regards,
Aniroop Mathur
--------- Original Message ---------
Sender : ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@cn.bosch.com>
Date : 2016-12-01 11:19 (GMT+5:30)
Title : RE: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
Hello Aniroop Mathur
Thank you for your mail.
We have used the usleep_range() function in our new product's driver and the verification result is working.
Your patch for bma150 is definitely working for sure.
Just one question need your answer.
To replace the msleep(2), is usleep_range(2000, 2100) better than usleep_range(2000, 2000) ?
Best regards
Albert (Xu) ZHANG
BST/ESA3.1
-----Original Message-----
From: mathur.aniroop@gmail.com [mailto:mathur.aniroop@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aniroop Mathur
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 12:36 AM
To: ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@cn.bosch.com>; Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>; linux-input@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@gmail.com>; s.samuel@samsung.com; r.mahale@samsung.com; Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
Hello Mr. Albert Zhang,
I am Aniroop Mathur from Samsung R&D Institute, India.
I have submitted one patch as below for review to Linux Open Source.
The problem is that we do not have the hardware available with us to
test it and we would like to test it before actually applying it.
As you are the author of this driver, so I would like to request
you if you could help to test this patch or provide us the contact points
of individuals who could support to get this patch tested?
Thank you!
BR,
Aniroop Mathur
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com> wrote:
> msleep(1~20) may not do what the caller intends, and will often sleep longer.
> (~20 ms actual sleep for any value given in the 1~20ms range)
> This is not the desired behaviour for many cases like device resume time,
> device suspend time, device enable time, etc.
> Thus, change msleep to usleep_range for precise wakeups.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com>
> ---
> drivers/input/misc/bma150.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> index 2124390..1fa8537 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int bma150_set_mode(struct bma150_data *bma150, u8 mode)
> return error;
>
> if (mode == BMA150_MODE_NORMAL)
> - msleep(2);
> + usleep_range(2000, 2100);
>
> bma150->mode = mode;
> return 0;
> @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ static int bma150_soft_reset(struct bma150_data *bma150)
> if (error)
> return error;
>
> - msleep(2);
> + usleep_range(2000, 2100);
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.6.2
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* RE: RE: RE: [Please Apply][PATCH] Input: misc: bma150: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
2016-12-01 10:34 ` Aniroop Mathur
2016-12-01 11:44 ` ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1)
@ 2016-12-01 15:50 ` Aniroop Mathur
2016-12-23 5:07 ` RE: [PATCH] Input: " ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1)
2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Aniroop Mathur @ 2016-12-01 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dmitry Torokhov
Cc: ZHANG Xu (BST, linux-input, linux-kernel, Aniroop Mathur,
SAMUEL SEQUEIRA, Rahul Mahale
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5177 bytes --]
Dear Mr. Torokhov,
As this patch is now verified, would you please apply it?
Thank you!
--
Best Regards,
Aniroop Mathur
Lead Engineer | System 1 - Sensor R&D
Samsung Research Institute India - Noida
Tel: 0120-6711111 Ext: 4018
Mob: +91 9971865523
Email: a.mathur@samsung.com
--------- Original Message ---------
Sender : ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@cn.bosch.com>
Date : 2016-12-01 17:14 (GMT+5:30)
Title : RE: RE: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
Dear Aniroop Mathur
Got your point.
Thank you for your explanation!
Best regards
Albert (Xu) ZHANG
BST/ESA3.1
-----Original Message-----
From: Aniroop Mathur [mailto:a.mathur@samsung.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 6:34 PM
To: ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@cn.bosch.com>; Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>; linux-input@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@gmail.com>; SAMUEL SEQUEIRA <s.samuel@samsung.com>; Rahul Mahale <r.mahale@samsung.com>
Subject: RE: RE: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
Dear Mr. Albert Zhang,
Thank you for your confirmation!
Yes, I think usleep_range(2000, 2100) is better than usleep_range(2000, 2000)
because delta time will allow the kernel to batch the processes who need to
wake up around same time and generate single interrupt to wake up all of them.
So this would be beneficial from power saving point of view.
--
Best Regards,
Aniroop Mathur
--------- Original Message ---------
Sender : ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@cn.bosch.com>
Date : 2016-12-01 11:19 (GMT+5:30)
Title : RE: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
Hello Aniroop Mathur
Thank you for your mail.
We have used the usleep_range() function in our new product's driver and the verification result is working.
Your patch for bma150 is definitely working for sure.
Just one question need your answer.
To replace the msleep(2), is usleep_range(2000, 2100) better than usleep_range(2000, 2000) ?
Best regards
Albert (Xu) ZHANG
BST/ESA3.1
-----Original Message-----
From: mathur.aniroop@gmail.com [mailto:mathur.aniroop@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aniroop Mathur
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 12:36 AM
To: ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@cn.bosch.com>; Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>; linux-input@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@gmail.com>; s.samuel@samsung.com; r.mahale@samsung.com; Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
Hello Mr. Albert Zhang,
I am Aniroop Mathur from Samsung R&D Institute, India.
I have submitted one patch as below for review to Linux Open Source.
The problem is that we do not have the hardware available with us to
test it and we would like to test it before actually applying it.
As you are the author of this driver, so I would like to request
you if you could help to test this patch or provide us the contact points
of individuals who could support to get this patch tested?
Thank you!
BR,
Aniroop Mathur
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com> wrote:
> msleep(1~20) may not do what the caller intends, and will often sleep longer.
> (~20 ms actual sleep for any value given in the 1~20ms range)
> This is not the desired behaviour for many cases like device resume time,
> device suspend time, device enable time, etc.
> Thus, change msleep to usleep_range for precise wakeups.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com>
> ---
> drivers/input/misc/bma150.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> index 2124390..1fa8537 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int bma150_set_mode(struct bma150_data *bma150, u8 mode)
> return error;
>
> if (mode == BMA150_MODE_NORMAL)
> - msleep(2);
> + usleep_range(2000, 2100);
>
> bma150->mode = mode;
> return 0;
> @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ static int bma150_soft_reset(struct bma150_data *bma150)
> if (error)
> return error;
>
> - msleep(2);
> + usleep_range(2000, 2100);
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.6.2
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* RE: RE: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
2016-12-01 10:34 ` Aniroop Mathur
2016-12-01 11:44 ` ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1)
2016-12-01 15:50 ` RE: RE: [Please Apply][PATCH] Input: misc: bma150: " Aniroop Mathur
@ 2016-12-23 5:07 ` ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1)
2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) @ 2016-12-23 5:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: a.mathur, Dmitry Torokhov, linux-input, linux-kernel
Cc: Aniroop Mathur, SAMUEL SEQUEIRA, Rahul Mahale
Dear Aniroop Mathur
Please see the acknowledgement below.
Best regards
Albert (Xu) ZHANG
BST/ESA3.1
Tel. +86(21)2218-1283
-----Original Message-----
From: Aniroop Mathur [mailto:a.mathur@samsung.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 6:34 PM
To: ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@cn.bosch.com>; Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>; linux-input@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@gmail.com>; SAMUEL SEQUEIRA <s.samuel@samsung.com>; Rahul Mahale <r.mahale@samsung.com>
Subject: RE: RE: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
Dear Mr. Albert Zhang,
Thank you for your confirmation!
Yes, I think usleep_range(2000, 2100) is better than usleep_range(2000, 2000)
because delta time will allow the kernel to batch the processes who need to
wake up around same time and generate single interrupt to wake up all of them.
So this would be beneficial from power saving point of view.
--
Best Regards,
Aniroop Mathur
--------- Original Message ---------
Sender : ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@cn.bosch.com>
Date : 2016-12-01 11:19 (GMT+5:30)
Title : RE: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
Hello Aniroop Mathur
Thank you for your mail.
We have used the usleep_range() function in our new product's driver and the verification result is working.
Your patch for bma150 is definitely working for sure.
Just one question need your answer.
To replace the msleep(2), is usleep_range(2000, 2100) better than usleep_range(2000, 2000) ?
Best regards
Albert (Xu) ZHANG
BST/ESA3.1
-----Original Message-----
From: mathur.aniroop@gmail.com [mailto:mathur.aniroop@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aniroop Mathur
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 12:36 AM
To: ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1) <Xu.Zhang@cn.bosch.com>; Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>; linux-input@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@gmail.com>; s.samuel@samsung.com; r.mahale@samsung.com; Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs
Hello Mr. Albert Zhang,
I am Aniroop Mathur from Samsung R&D Institute, India.
I have submitted one patch as below for review to Linux Open Source.
The problem is that we do not have the hardware available with us to
test it and we would like to test it before actually applying it.
As you are the author of this driver, so I would like to request
you if you could help to test this patch or provide us the contact points
of individuals who could support to get this patch tested?
Thank you!
BR,
Aniroop Mathur
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com> wrote:
> msleep(1~20) may not do what the caller intends, and will often sleep longer.
> (~20 ms actual sleep for any value given in the 1~20ms range)
> This is not the desired behaviour for many cases like device resume time,
> device suspend time, device enable time, etc.
> Thus, change msleep to usleep_range for precise wakeups.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@samsung.com>
Acked by: Albert Zhang <xu.zhang@bosch-sensortec.com>
> ---
> drivers/input/misc/bma150.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> index 2124390..1fa8537 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/bma150.c
> @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int bma150_set_mode(struct bma150_data *bma150, u8 mode)
> return error;
>
> if (mode == BMA150_MODE_NORMAL)
> - msleep(2);
> + usleep_range(2000, 2100);
>
> bma150->mode = mode;
> return 0;
> @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ static int bma150_soft_reset(struct bma150_data *bma150)
> if (error)
> return error;
>
> - msleep(2);
> + usleep_range(2000, 2100);
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.6.2
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-12-23 5:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-11-24 16:03 [PATCH] Input: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs Aniroop Mathur
2016-11-28 16:35 ` Aniroop Mathur
2016-12-01 5:49 ` ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1)
[not found] ` <CGME20161201054940epcas4p3ad9a27ce7fbfcd94ac71e13180b7fb66@epcas4p3.samsung.com>
2016-12-01 10:34 ` Aniroop Mathur
2016-12-01 11:44 ` ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1)
2016-12-01 15:50 ` RE: RE: [Please Apply][PATCH] Input: misc: bma150: " Aniroop Mathur
2016-12-23 5:07 ` RE: [PATCH] Input: " ZHANG Xu (BST/ESA3.1)
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).