[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20201101002010.278537-1-hassan@ninchat.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2020 02:20:10 +0200
From: Hassan Shahbazi <hassan.shahbazi@...ia.fi>
To: linus.walleij@...aro.org
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Hassan Shahbazi <hassan@...chat.com>
Subject: [PATCH] staging: fbtft: fb_watterott: fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay
Fix the checkpath.pl issue on fb_watterott.c. write_vmem and
write_vmem_8bit functions are within non-atomic context and can
safely use usleep_range.
see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
Signed-off-by: Hassan Shahbazi <hassan@...chat.com>
---
drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c
index 76b25df376b8..afcc86a17995 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int write_vmem(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len)
par->txbuf.buf, 10 + par->info->fix.line_length);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
- udelay(300);
+ usleep_range(300, 310);
}
return 0;
@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ static int write_vmem_8bit(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len)
par->txbuf.buf, 10 + par->info->var.xres);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
- udelay(700);
+ usleep_range(700, 710);
}
return 0;
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists