From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Lukas Schneider <lukas.s.schneider@fau.de>
Cc: kim.jamie.bradley@gmail.com, pakki001@umn.edu,
colin.king@canonical.com, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jannik Moritz <jannik.moritz@fau.de>,
linux-kernel@i4.cs.fau.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] rts5208: Fix usleep range is preferred over udelay
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 13:04:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190621110405.GG24145@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190619154648.13840-4-lukas.s.schneider@fau.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1996 bytes --]
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
> @@ -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);
>
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-21 11:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-19 15:46 [PATCH 1/4] rts5208: Fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay Lukas Schneider
2019-06-19 15:46 ` [PATCH 2/4] " Lukas Schneider
2019-06-19 15:46 ` [PATCH 3/4] " Lukas Schneider
2019-06-19 15:46 ` [PATCH 4/4] rts5208: Fix usleep range " Lukas Schneider
2019-06-21 11:04 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2019-06-21 13:01 ` Lukas Schneider
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190621110405.GG24145@amd \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=colin.king@canonical.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=jannik.moritz@fau.de \
--cc=kim.jamie.bradley@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@i4.cs.fau.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas.s.schneider@fau.de \
--cc=pakki001@umn.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.