Re: [PATCH] staging: nvec: udelay to usleep_range

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 02:55:35PM -0400, Uros Milojkovic wrote:
> Checkpatch pl alerts that usleep_range is preferred to udelay. The
> change is made.
> Signed-off-by: umilojkovic <uroshm@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> index 2823cacde130..8bb3b691d1f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> @@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ static irqreturn_t nvec_interrupt(int irq, void *dev)
>          break;
>      case 2:        /* first byte after command */
>          if (status == (I2C_SL_IRQ | RNW | RCVD)) {
> -            udelay(33);
> +            usleep_range(33, 200);
>              if (nvec->rx->data[0] != 0x01) {
>                  dev_err(nvec->dev,
>                      "Read without prior read command\n");
> @@ -714,7 +714,7 @@ static irqreturn_t nvec_interrupt(int irq, void *dev)
>       * We experience less incomplete messages with this delay than without
>       * it, but we don't know why. Help is appreciated.
>       */
> -    udelay(100);
> +    usleep_range(100, 200);
> 
>      return IRQ_HANDLED;
>  }
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

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 is malformed (tabs converted to spaces, linewrapped, etc.)
  and can not be applied.  Please read the file,
  Documentation/process/email-clients.rst in order to fix this.

- It looks like you did not use your "real" name for the patch on either
  the Signed-off-by: line, or the From: line (both of which have to
  match).  Please read the kernel file,
  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for how to do this
  correctly.

- You sent a patch that has been sent multiple times in the past, and is
  identical to ones that has been recently rejected.  Please always look
  at the mailing list traffic to determine if you are duplicating other
  people's work.

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