Re: [PATCH] iio: pressure: bm1390: replace short msleeps with usleep_range

[Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>]

On 09/06/2026 09:13, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 06:41:54PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On Sun,  7 Jun 2026 14:00:18 +0000
>> Hungyu Lin <dennylin0707@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Replace msleep(1) with usleep_range(1000, 2000) for the
>>> driver's short delays.
>>>
>>> The BM1390 datasheet specifies a 1 ms reset cancel wait time
>>> (tSC1) during the power-on sequence. Use usleep_range() for
>>> these short delays, as it is more appropriate than msleep()
>>> and avoids unnecessarily long sleeps.
>>
>> Use fsleep() which has the added advantage of standardizing the
>> 'slack' so we don't have to thing about the values chosen
> 
> While true, msleep(1) is kinda idiomatic, we don't need to hunt subtle timing
> issues in case of switching to stricter fsleep(), which will most likely choose
> usleep_range() beneath. TL;DR: I do not see a value in this change.
> 

I don't see the value either, unless there is a real problem the patch 
author has encountered. If there is a real world problem this is solving 
- please state it. My stance on fsleep() Vs. msleep() in ASYNC probes 
can be read from discussion (bikeshedding) between me and Nuno ;)

https://lore.kernel.org/all/14a23df0e1828b72b8b03c358980fe08a12bb216.camel@gmail.com/

Yours,
	-- Matti


-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~