[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b7319d00-d8db-4e8b-9143-7926f8a34fbe@kadam.mountain>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 16:01:05 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Uros Milojkovic <uroshm@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, marvin24@....de,
p.zabel@...gutronix.de, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: nvec: udelay to usleep_range
On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 02:55:35PM -0400, Uros Milojkovic wrote:
> 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);
These kind of patches are only allowed if you have actually tested it
on real hardware.
> if (nvec->rx->data[0] != 0x01) {
> dev_err(nvec->dev,
> "Read without prior read command\n");
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists