[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201101063948.GB432418@kroah.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2020 07:39:48 +0100
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Hassan Shahbazi <hassan.shahbazi@...ia.fi>
Cc: linus.walleij@...aro.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Hassan Shahbazi <hassan@...chat.com>,
linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: fbtft: fb_watterott: fix usleep_range is
preferred over udelay
On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 02:20:10AM +0200, Hassan Shahbazi wrote:
> 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);
How do you know that these ranges are ok? Are you able to test these
changes with real hardware?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists