[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e57cb313-77da-47c3-be5a-93725a52707f@moroto.mountain>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:55:09 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: "Moritz C. Weber" <mo.c.weber@...il.com>
Cc: marvin24@....de, ac100@...ts.launchpad.net, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: nvec: nvec: fixed two usleep_range is preferred
over udelay warnings
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 02:36:45PM +0100, Moritz C. Weber wrote:
> Fixed a code style issue raised by checkpatch.
Needs Signed-off-by. Please run your patches through 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);
We only accept these udelay() -> usleep_range() patches if they have
been tested on real hardware. Sorry.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists