[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190619154648.13840-1-lukas.s.schneider@fau.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:46:45 +0200
From: Lukas Schneider <lukas.s.schneider@....de>
To: kim.jamie.bradley@...il.com, pakki001@....edu,
colin.king@...onical.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Lukas Schneider <lukas.s.schneider@....de>,
Jannik Moritz <jannik.moritz@....de>, linux-kernel@...cs.fau.de
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] rts5208: Fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay
This patch fixes the issue reported by checkpatch:
CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay;
see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
It's save to sleep here instead of using busy waiting,
because we are not in an atomic context.
Signed-off-by: Lukas Schneider <lukas.s.schneider@....de>
Signed-off-by: Jannik Moritz <jannik.moritz@....de>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...cs.fau.de>
---
drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
index 1128eec3bd08..264887d8b3e6 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
@@ -3237,7 +3237,7 @@ static int ms_write_multiple_pages(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u16 old_blk,
return STATUS_FAIL;
}
- udelay(30);
+ usleep_range(30, 40);
rtsx_init_cmd(chip);
@@ -4159,7 +4159,7 @@ int mg_set_ICV(struct scsi_cmnd *srb, struct rtsx_chip *chip)
#ifdef MG_SET_ICV_SLOW
for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
- udelay(50);
+ usleep_range(50, 60);
rtsx_init_cmd(chip);
--
2.19.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists