[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAP=xWk6GvVQxzTJ6jS2pQ9dKvgoFFHc=m4yMma101MGKgdcm5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 14:55:35 -0400
From: Uros Milojkovic <uroshm@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, marvin24@....de,
p.zabel@...gutronix.de, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: [PATCH] staging: nvec: udelay to usleep_range
Checkpatch pl alerts that usleep_range is preferred to udelay. The
change is made.
Signed-off-by: umilojkovic <uroshm@...il.com>
---
drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
index 2823cacde130..8bb3b691d1f5 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
@@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ static irqreturn_t nvec_interrupt(int irq, void *dev)
break;
case 2: /* first byte after command */
if (status == (I2C_SL_IRQ | RNW | RCVD)) {
- udelay(33);
+ usleep_range(33, 200);
if (nvec->rx->data[0] != 0x01) {
dev_err(nvec->dev,
"Read without prior read command\n");
@@ -714,7 +714,7 @@ static irqreturn_t nvec_interrupt(int irq, void *dev)
* We experience less incomplete messages with this delay than without
* it, but we don't know why. Help is appreciated.
*/
- udelay(100);
+ usleep_range(100, 200);
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
--
2.34.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists