Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] b43: Replace mdelay with usleep_range in b43_radio_2057_init_post | From | Jia-Ju Bai <> | Date | Tue, 9 Jan 2018 16:39:31 +0800 |
| |
On 2018/1/9 16:35, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 09:40:06AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote: >> b43_radio_2057_init_post is not called in an interrupt handler >> nor holding a spinlock. >> The function mdelay in it can be replaced with usleep_range, >> to reduce busy wait. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> >> --- >> v2: >> * Replace mdelay with usleep_range, instead of msleep in v1. >> Thank Larry for good advice. >> --- >> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c >> index a5557d7..f2a2f41 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c >> @@ -1031,7 +1031,7 @@ static void b43_radio_2057_init_post(struct b43_wldev *dev) >> >> b43_radio_set(dev, R2057_RFPLL_MISC_CAL_RESETN, 0x78); >> b43_radio_set(dev, R2057_XTAL_CONFIG2, 0x80); >> - mdelay(2); >> + usleep_range(2000, 3000); > Where did 3000 come from? Are you sure about that?
I am not very sure, and I use it according to Larry's message:
> I had negative comments on one of those due to the possibility of > msleep(2) extending as long as 20 msec. Until the author, or someone > else, can test that this is OK, then the mdelay(2) can only be > replaced with usleep_range(2000, 3000).
Thanks, Jia-Ju Bai
| |