| Message ID | CAP=xWk6GvVQxzTJ6jS2pQ9dKvgoFFHc=m4yMma101MGKgdcm5A@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Handled Elsewhere |
| Headers | show |
| Series | staging: nvec: udelay to usleep_range | expand |
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@gmail.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 > Hi, This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux kernel tree. You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s) as indicated below: - Your patch is malformed (tabs converted to spaces, linewrapped, etc.) and can not be applied. Please read the file, Documentation/process/email-clients.rst in order to fix this. - It looks like you did not use your "real" name for the patch on either the Signed-off-by: line, or the From: line (both of which have to match). Please read the kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for how to do this correctly. - You sent a patch that has been sent multiple times in the past, and is identical to ones that has been recently rejected. Please always look at the mailing list traffic to determine if you are duplicating other people's work. If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received from other developers. thanks, greg k-h's patch email bot
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@gmail.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
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; }
Checkpatch pl alerts that usleep_range is preferred to udelay. The change is made. Signed-off-by: umilojkovic <uroshm@gmail.com> --- drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)