[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240212133645.1836-1-mo.c.weber@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:36:45 +0100
From: "Moritz C. Weber" <mo.c.weber@...il.com>
To: marvin24@....de
Cc: ac100@...ts.launchpad.net,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Moritz C. Weber" <mo.c.weber@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH] Staging: nvec: nvec: fixed two usleep_range is preferred over udelay warnings
Fixed a code style issue raised by checkpatch.
---
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 2823cacde..18c5471d5 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(32, 33);
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(99, 100);
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
--
2.30.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists