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

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 01:51:55PM -0700, Hungyu Lin wrote:

,,,

> > 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@xxxxxxxxx/
> 
> My motivation was based on the BM1390 datasheet specifying a 1 ms
> reset cancel wait time (tSC1).
> 
> For additional context, I contacted ROHM regarding the timing
> requirement and received the following response from their sales
> representative after consulting with their engineering team:

Wow! Thanks for doing that. I would appreciate the contributors will do like
you have done in this case and consult with a vendor in case of doubt.
(Yeah, some vendors are unresponsive, but it's not our issue.)

> "The engineer confirmed that setting a delay longer than 1 ms does not
> have any significant impact on subsequent operation."
> 
> Given this feedback and the comments in this thread, I agree that I do
> not have evidence of any real-world issue caused by the existing
> msleep(1) usage, nor a clear functional benefit from this change.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko