Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] rts5208: Fix usleep range is preferred over udelay | From | Lukas Schneider <> | Date | Fri, 21 Jun 2019 15:01:38 +0200 |
| |
Am 21.06.2019 um 13:04 schrieb Pavel Machek: > On Wed 2019-06-19 17:46:48, Lukas Schneider wrote: >> This patch fixes the issue reported by checkpatch: >> >> CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay; >> see Doucmentation/timers/timers-howto.txt >> >> It's save to sleep here instead of using busy waiting, >> because we are not in an atomic context. > Is it good idea? How can the system really sleep for 50 usec? > > Pavel
According to Doucmentation/timers/timers-howto.txt, usleep_range should be used for sleep times between 10us and 20ms, so it is the correct function for 50us.
Lukas
>> @@ -865,7 +865,7 @@ static int sd_change_phase(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u8 sample_point, u8 tune_dir) >> PHASE_CHANGE); >> if (retval) >> return retval; >> - udelay(50); >> + usleep_range(50, 60); >> retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF, >> PHASE_CHANGE | >> PHASE_NOT_RESET | >> @@ -877,14 +877,14 @@ static int sd_change_phase(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u8 sample_point, u8 tune_dir) >> CHANGE_CLK, CHANGE_CLK); >> if (retval) >> return retval; >> - udelay(50); >> + usleep_range(50, 60); >> retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF, >> PHASE_NOT_RESET | >> sample_point); >> if (retval) >> return retval; >> } >> - udelay(100); >> + usleep_range(100, 110); >> >> rtsx_init_cmd(chip); >> rtsx_add_cmd(chip, WRITE_REG_CMD, SD_DCMPS_CTL, DCMPS_CHANGE, >> @@ -918,7 +918,7 @@ static int sd_change_phase(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u8 sample_point, u8 tune_dir) >> return retval; >> } >> >> - udelay(50); >> + usleep_range(50, 60); >> } >> >> retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_CFG1, SD_ASYNC_FIFO_NOT_RST, 0); >> @@ -1416,7 +1416,7 @@ static int sd_wait_data_idle(struct rtsx_chip *chip) >> retval = STATUS_SUCCESS; >> break; >> } >> - udelay(100); >> + usleep_range(100, 110); >> } >> dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_DATA_STATE: 0x%02x\n", val); >>
| |