From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED97C4332F for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 04:37:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229471AbiLOEhY (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2022 23:37:24 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37368 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229543AbiLOEhX (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2022 23:37:23 -0500 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4601:e00::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 474A44732E; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 20:37:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ACB5B81A1D; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 04:37:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 349EEC433D2; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 04:37:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1671079038; bh=iPpQhEwGYEJvzDjn9myuRzCRrqgzmmgWSjtc0v77jC8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZWh0F5DfFMlr0MK1gV6BiBbPyGgu7t8p2nXlv4k3UBaswCYoJViDbaUXnQsjk3L5M XDM6ts9j5FK/DsaH/a0hpoD4XRNcj1GJD6GeR3vfR/QbgzvBpMmCIP9550Tsna7YTs c4SROpoBFEc1G9QmqMVnYYFFNuKP+WUm31wKkySs= Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 05:37:15 +0100 From: Greg KH To: "Haris M. Bhatti" Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: staging: fbtft: Replace usage of udelay Message-ID: References: <20221215013746.270404-1-kernel@techtum.dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221215013746.270404-1-kernel@techtum.dev> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 01:37:46AM +0000, Haris M. Bhatti wrote: > checkpatch highlighted that use of udelay should be replaced by > usleep_range. > --- > drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c > index 398bdbf53c9a..75cf3bb18414 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c > @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ static void write_reg8_bus8(struct fbtft_par *par, int len, ...) > } > len--; > > - udelay(100); > + usleep_range(100, 101); > > if (len) { > buf = (u8 *)par->buf; > @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ static void write_reg8_bus8(struct fbtft_par *par, int len, ...) > > /* restore user spi-speed */ > par->fbtftops.write = fbtft_write_spi; > - udelay(100); > + usleep_range(100, 101); > } > > static int write_vmem16_bus8(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len) > -- > 2.38.1 > > 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 does not have a Signed-off-by: line. Please read the kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches and resend it after adding that line. Note, the line needs to be in the body of the email, before the patch, not at the bottom of the patch or in the email signature. - You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or possibly, any description at all, in the email body. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to properly describe the change. - You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg, and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should look like. 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