From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06548C00307 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:56:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D92218AC for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:56:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1568022989; bh=gZ0748sBch7IpXH/kLfqLXjMbt6zIXw46guvy3EAtDg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=jyxDHPBjKll1XB96xtkbN37Fe1BHfYTONmPxj/lycJhrz+/RGlgRzNZu6orom8YIo 3P6ktoVY73v+jfxOYUejDtBPz7yRFgYP6+cW9qjJYAzNZ0YF8JBm6eYbEfSyQFh+C4 tSaMJIoYTpeMqbEzYjdmdcoFOcNm/1CJ4XGsPn2Y= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390097AbfIIJ43 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Sep 2019 05:56:29 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:36968 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729181AbfIIJ42 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Sep 2019 05:56:28 -0400 Received: from localhost (110.8.30.213.rev.vodafone.pt [213.30.8.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6FFE12086D; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:56:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1568022988; bh=gZ0748sBch7IpXH/kLfqLXjMbt6zIXw46guvy3EAtDg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fJBfDih22n1GvUOnHveq2BfLBrerPWSYxwXF3/rHjEIxO+Qs1MJL6JrubcX6uzbcV 6y2swciZuLTWVPnyuF5ahYPPmm1oCR1YvyW+7aOIw7pyEIoyi4YZGiZKfSj/PMPNzJ qBn+WvWXaW1cWPgSrRBzz5yGOsltDF8WKP3VAe8Y= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:56:25 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Sreeram Veluthakkal Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, nishadkamdar@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, payal.s.kshirsagar.98@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] FBTFT: fb_agm1264k: usleep_range is preferred over udelay Message-ID: <20190909095625.GB17624@kroah.com> References: <20190909012605.15051-1-srrmvlt@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190909012605.15051-1-srrmvlt@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 08:26:05PM -0500, Sreeram Veluthakkal wrote: > This patch fixes the issue: > FILE: drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c:88: > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay; see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst > + udelay(20); > > Signed-off-by: Sreeram Veluthakkal > --- > drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c > index eeeeec97ad27..2dece71fd3b5 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c > @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static void reset(struct fbtft_par *par) > dev_dbg(par->info->device, "%s()\n", __func__); > > gpiod_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 0); > - udelay(20); > + usleep_range(20, 40); Is it "safe" to wait 40? This kind of change you can only do if you know this is correct. Have you tested this with hardware? thanks, greg k-h