linux-fbdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Wyatt <jbwyatt4@gmail.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com,
	Payal Kshirsagar <payal.s.kshirsagar.98@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: fbtft: Replace udelay with preferred usleep_range
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 09:38:51 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2fccf96c3754e6319797a10856e438e023f734a7.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2003291127230.2990@hadrien>

On Sun, 2020-03-29 at 11:28 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, John B. Wyatt IV wrote:
> 
> > Fix style issue with usleep_range being reported as preferred over
> > udelay.
> > 
> > Issue reported by checkpatch.
> > 
> > Please review.
> > 
> > As written in Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst udelay is the
> > generally preferred API. hrtimers, as noted in the docs, may be too
> > expensive for this short timer.
> > 
> > Are the docs out of date, or, is this a checkpatch issue?
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: John B. Wyatt IV <jbwyatt4@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  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..019c8cce6bab 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, 20);
> 
> usleep_range should have a range, eg usleep_range(50, 100);.  But it
> is
> hard to know a priori what the range should be.  So it is probably
> better
> to leave the code alone.

Understood.

With the question I wrote in the commit message:

"As written in Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst udelay is the
generally preferred API. hrtimers, as noted in the docs, may be too
expensive for this short timer.

Are the docs out of date, or, is this a checkpatch issue?"

Is usleep_range too expensive for this operation?

Why does checkpatch favor usleep_range while the docs favor udelay?

> 
> julia
> 
> >  	gpiod_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 1);
> >  	mdelay(120);
> >  }
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> > 
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> > send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20200329092204.770405-1-jbwyatt4%40gmail.com
> > .
> > 

  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-29  9:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-29  9:22 [PATCH] staging: fbtft: Replace udelay with preferred usleep_range John B. Wyatt IV
2020-03-29  9:28 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Julia Lawall
2020-03-29  9:38   ` John Wyatt [this message]
2020-03-29  9:47     ` Julia Lawall
     [not found]       ` <CAMS7mKBEhqFat8fWi=QiFwfLV9+skwi1hE-swg=XxU48zk=_tQ@mail.gmail.com>
2020-03-29 10:37         ` Julia Lawall
2020-03-29 10:51           ` Sam Muhammed
2020-03-29 12:22             ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-03-30 17:40           ` Stefano Brivio
2020-03-30 22:03             ` John B. Wyatt IV
2020-03-30 22:16               ` Stefano Brivio

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=2fccf96c3754e6319797a10856e438e023f734a7.camel@gmail.com \
    --to=jbwyatt4@gmail.com \
    --cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=julia.lawall@inria.fr \
    --cc=linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=payal.s.kshirsagar.98@gmail.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).