[PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

[PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

[kenechukwu maduechesi]

Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling.

Reported by checkpatch:

CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay

Signed-off-by: kenechukwu maduechesi <maduechesik@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c
index 74c4f476b3a4..059f99b0a727 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c
@@ -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);
 			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);
 			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF,
 						     PHASE_NOT_RESET |
 						     sample_point);
 			if (retval)
 				return retval;
 		}
-		udelay(100);
+		usleep_range(100);
 
 		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);
 	}
 
 	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);
 	}
 	dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_DATA_STATE: 0x%02x\n", val);
 
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

[Andi Shyti]

Hi Kenechukwu,

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 06:03:05PM -0700, kenechukwu maduechesi wrote:
> Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling.

The reason is not the precise handling, quite the opposite.

> Reported by checkpatch:
> 
> CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay

Can you tell why?[*]

> Signed-off-by: kenechukwu maduechesi <maduechesik@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c
> index 74c4f476b3a4..059f99b0a727 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c
> @@ -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);

What is the range you will be sleeping, now?

Andi

[*] Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

[Julia Lawall]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2023, kenechukwu maduechesi wrote:

> Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling.
>
> Reported by checkpatch:
>
> CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay

This message is typically not a good candidate for outreachy patches,
because you need access to the device to be sure that any change is
correct.

julia

>
> Signed-off-by: kenechukwu maduechesi <maduechesik@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c
> index 74c4f476b3a4..059f99b0a727 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c
> @@ -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);
>  			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);
>  			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF,
>  						     PHASE_NOT_RESET |
>  						     sample_point);
>  			if (retval)
>  				return retval;
>  		}
> -		udelay(100);
> +		usleep_range(100);
>
>  		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);
>  	}
>
>  	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);
>  	}
>  	dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_DATA_STATE: 0x%02x\n", val);
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
>
>

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

[Karolina Stolarek]

On 18.10.2023 09:03, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023, kenechukwu maduechesi wrote:
> 
>> Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling.
>>
>> Reported by checkpatch:
>>
>> CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay
> 
> This message is typically not a good candidate for outreachy patches,
> because you need access to the device to be sure that any change is
> correct.

Could we add a paragraph on how to pick good checkpatch.pl error to fix 
to the Outreachyfirstpatch docs? This could go to "Find a driver to 
clean up" section, for example.

All the best,
Karolina

> 
> julia
> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: kenechukwu maduechesi <maduechesik@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c | 10 +++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c
>> index 74c4f476b3a4..059f99b0a727 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c
>> @@ -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);
>>   			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);
>>   			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF,
>>   						     PHASE_NOT_RESET |
>>   						     sample_point);
>>   			if (retval)
>>   				return retval;
>>   		}
>> -		udelay(100);
>> +		usleep_range(100);
>>
>>   		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);
>>   	}
>>
>>   	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);
>>   	}
>>   	dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_DATA_STATE: 0x%02x\n", val);
>>
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
>>
>>
> 

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 09:32:46AM +0200, Karolina Stolarek wrote:
> On 18.10.2023 09:03, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 17 Oct 2023, kenechukwu maduechesi wrote:
> > 
> > > Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling.
> > > 
> > > Reported by checkpatch:
> > > 
> > > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay
> > 
> > This message is typically not a good candidate for outreachy patches,
> > because you need access to the device to be sure that any change is
> > correct.
> 
> Could we add a paragraph on how to pick good checkpatch.pl error to fix to
> the Outreachyfirstpatch docs? This could go to "Find a driver to clean up"
> section, for example.

The ability to find a "good" error changes over time, so this might be
hard to do.

good luck!

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

[Karolina Stolarek]

On 18.10.2023 09:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 09:32:46AM +0200, Karolina Stolarek wrote:
>> On 18.10.2023 09:03, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023, kenechukwu maduechesi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling.
>>>>
>>>> Reported by checkpatch:
>>>>
>>>> CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay
>>>
>>> This message is typically not a good candidate for outreachy patches,
>>> because you need access to the device to be sure that any change is
>>> correct.
>>
>> Could we add a paragraph on how to pick good checkpatch.pl error to fix to
>> the Outreachyfirstpatch docs? This could go to "Find a driver to clean up"
>> section, for example.
> 
> The ability to find a "good" error changes over time, so this might be
> hard to do.

I agree, but we can all agree that experimenting with udelay during 
Outreachy is not a good idea, and people should know about it

All the best,
Karolina

> 
> good luck!
> 
> greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

[Karolina Stolarek]

On 18.10.2023 03:03, kenechukwu maduechesi wrote:
> Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling.
> 
> Reported by checkpatch:
> 
> CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay

Have you tried to compile your patch? This is something you should do 
before sending it to the mailing list.

All the best,
Karolina

> 
> Signed-off-by: kenechukwu maduechesi <maduechesik@gmail.com>
> ---
>   drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c | 10 +++++-----
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c
> index 74c4f476b3a4..059f99b0a727 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c
> @@ -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);
>   			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);
>   			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF,
>   						     PHASE_NOT_RESET |
>   						     sample_point);
>   			if (retval)
>   				return retval;
>   		}
> -		udelay(100);
> +		usleep_range(100);
>   
>   		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);
>   	}
>   
>   	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);
>   	}
>   	dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_DATA_STATE: 0x%02x\n", val);
>   

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

[Julia Lawall]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Karolina Stolarek wrote:

> On 18.10.2023 09:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 09:32:46AM +0200, Karolina Stolarek wrote:
> > > On 18.10.2023 09:03, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2023, kenechukwu maduechesi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reported by checkpatch:
> > > > >
> > > > > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay
> > > >
> > > > This message is typically not a good candidate for outreachy patches,
> > > > because you need access to the device to be sure that any change is
> > > > correct.
> > >
> > > Could we add a paragraph on how to pick good checkpatch.pl error to fix to
> > > the Outreachyfirstpatch docs? This could go to "Find a driver to clean up"
> > > section, for example.
> >
> > The ability to find a "good" error changes over time, so this might be
> > hard to do.
>
> I agree, but we can all agree that experimenting with udelay during Outreachy
> is not a good idea, and people should know about it

In general, I think that it is better in the contribution period to do the
wrong thing and then learn about why it is wrong, but this case comes up
over and over, and it is always not the right thing to do, so I added an
appropriate explanation.  Thanks for the suggestion.

julia

>
> All the best,
> Karolina
>
> >
> > good luck!
> >
> > greg k-h
>

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

[Andi Shyti]

Hi Julia,

> > Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling.
> >
> > Reported by checkpatch:
> >
> > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay
> 
> This message is typically not a good candidate for outreachy patches,
> because you need access to the device to be sure that any change is
> correct.

I actually don't really mind this patch... I would exchange these
udelay() with almost anything, they look to me placed a bit
random anyway (without going too much in detail).

But in general, for this project, I think you are right and it's
a good idea not to blindly change delay and sleeping functions
without really knowing what you are doing.

Andi

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

[Karolina Stolarek]

On 18.10.2023 12:28, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Karolina Stolarek wrote:
> 
>> On 18.10.2023 09:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 09:32:46AM +0200, Karolina Stolarek wrote:
>>>> On 18.10.2023 09:03, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023, kenechukwu maduechesi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reported by checkpatch:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay
>>>>>
>>>>> This message is typically not a good candidate for outreachy patches,
>>>>> because you need access to the device to be sure that any change is
>>>>> correct.
>>>>
>>>> Could we add a paragraph on how to pick good checkpatch.pl error to fix to
>>>> the Outreachyfirstpatch docs? This could go to "Find a driver to clean up"
>>>> section, for example.
>>>
>>> The ability to find a "good" error changes over time, so this might be
>>> hard to do.
>>
>> I agree, but we can all agree that experimenting with udelay during Outreachy
>> is not a good idea, and people should know about it
> 
> In general, I think that it is better in the contribution period to do the
> wrong thing and then learn about why it is wrong, but this case comes up
> over and over, and it is always not the right thing to do, so I added an
> appropriate explanation.  Thanks for the suggestion.

Absolutely. Thanks for the docs update. Still, one thing -- is empty 
section after "Some drivers that are on their way out of the kernel 
are:" intentional?

All the best,
Karolina

> 
> julia
> 
>>
>> All the best,
>> Karolina
>>
>>>
>>> good luck!
>>>
>>> greg k-h
>>

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

[Dan Carpenter]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 09:32:46AM +0200, Karolina Stolarek wrote:
> On 18.10.2023 09:03, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 17 Oct 2023, kenechukwu maduechesi wrote:
> > 
> > > Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling.
> > > 
> > > Reported by checkpatch:
> > > 
> > > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay
> > 
> > This message is typically not a good candidate for outreachy patches,
> > because you need access to the device to be sure that any change is
> > correct.
> 
> Could we add a paragraph on how to pick good checkpatch.pl error to fix to
> the Outreachyfirstpatch docs? This could go to "Find a driver to clean up"
> section, for example.

I think you should put a note about usleep_range() and the extra
parentheses one.

Also say something about looking up stuff on lore.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=sd_change_phase%20usleep_range
In this case someone tried to update this before.  The patch wasn't
merged but it wasn't clearly explained to the developer why the patch
wasn't merged.  Ah well.

Generally fresh warnings are better than old warnings because we fix the
simple stuff where checkpatch is obviously correct.

The other thing is that people really need to look at the wider context.
Look at the surrounding code.  Look at when the checkpatch warning was
introduced and try to put yourself in the developer's head to figure out
what they were thinking.  Are there other opportunities for cleanups
nearby.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

[Alison Schofield]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:40:33PM +0200, Karolina Stolarek wrote:
> On 18.10.2023 12:28, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Karolina Stolarek wrote:
> > 
> > > On 18.10.2023 09:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 09:32:46AM +0200, Karolina Stolarek wrote:
> > > > > On 18.10.2023 09:03, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2023, kenechukwu maduechesi wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Reported by checkpatch:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This message is typically not a good candidate for outreachy patches,
> > > > > > because you need access to the device to be sure that any change is
> > > > > > correct.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Could we add a paragraph on how to pick good checkpatch.pl error to fix to
> > > > > the Outreachyfirstpatch docs? This could go to "Find a driver to clean up"
> > > > > section, for example.
> > > > 
> > > > The ability to find a "good" error changes over time, so this might be
> > > > hard to do.
> > > 
> > > I agree, but we can all agree that experimenting with udelay during Outreachy
> > > is not a good idea, and people should know about it
> > 
> > In general, I think that it is better in the contribution period to do the
> > wrong thing and then learn about why it is wrong, but this case comes up
> > over and over, and it is always not the right thing to do, so I added an
> > appropriate explanation.  Thanks for the suggestion.
> 
> Absolutely. Thanks for the docs update. Still, one thing -- is empty section
> after "Some drivers that are on their way out of the kernel are:"
> intentional?
> 
> All the best,
> Karolina

Perhaps an applicant can expand on that "Find a driver to clean up..."
section with a overview of how to use the Outreachy Mailing list,
or any Mailing list to search for patches that cleaned up up the
checkpatch error/warning/check that they are examining.

Here's the query for the udelay one:
https://lore.kernel.org/outreachy/?q=%22CHECK%3A+usleep_range+is+preferred+over+udelay%22

When submitters include the actual checkpatch string in their commit log 
it very easy to find and reference.

For the first patch tutorial, I'll suggest something as simple as:
1) goto https://lore.kernel.org/outreachy/
2) enter the checkpatch string in the 'search' box
3) boom - go see what others have done with this checkpatch error

Or, if someone wants to get fancy they can add screenshots :)

Note, that we really like to keep the language similar on these
cleanups. Find a few references, and do as they did.

> 
> > 
> > julia
> > 
> > > 
> > > All the best,
> > > Karolina
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > good luck!
> > > > 
> > > > greg k-h
> > > 
> 

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

[kernel test robot]

Hi kenechukwu,

kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:

[auto build test ERROR on staging/staging-testing]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/kenechukwu-maduechesi/staging-rts5208-Replace-delay-function/20231018-090457
base:   staging/staging-testing
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231018004300.GA3189%40ubuntu
patch subject: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.
config: microblaze-allyesconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231024/202310240604.OZnfTcMT-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: microblaze-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231024/202310240604.OZnfTcMT-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202310240604.OZnfTcMT-lkp@intel.com/

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

   drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c: In function 'sd_change_phase':
>> drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c:868:25: error: too few arguments to function 'usleep_range'
     868 |                         usleep_range(50);
         |                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~
   In file included from drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx.h:17,
                    from drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c:16:
   include/linux/delay.h:66:20: note: declared here
      66 | static inline void usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
         |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~
   drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c:880:25: error: too few arguments to function 'usleep_range'
     880 |                         usleep_range(50);
         |                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~
   include/linux/delay.h:66:20: note: declared here
      66 | static inline void usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
         |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~
   drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c:887:17: error: too few arguments to function 'usleep_range'
     887 |                 usleep_range(100);
         |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~
   include/linux/delay.h:66:20: note: declared here
      66 | static inline void usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
         |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~
   drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c:921:17: error: too few arguments to function 'usleep_range'
     921 |                 usleep_range(50);
         |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~
   include/linux/delay.h:66:20: note: declared here
      66 | static inline void usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
         |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~
   drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c: In function 'sd_wait_data_idle':
   drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c:1419:17: error: too few arguments to function 'usleep_range'
    1419 |                 usleep_range(100);
         |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~
   include/linux/delay.h:66:20: note: declared here
      66 | static inline void usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
         |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~


vim +/usleep_range +868 drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c

   814	
   815	static int sd_change_phase(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u8 sample_point, u8 tune_dir)
   816	{
   817		struct sd_info *sd_card = &chip->sd_card;
   818		u16 SD_VP_CTL, SD_DCMPS_CTL;
   819		u8 val;
   820		int retval;
   821		bool ddr_rx = false;
   822	
   823		dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "%s (sample_point = %d, tune_dir = %d)\n",
   824			__func__, sample_point, tune_dir);
   825	
   826		if (tune_dir == TUNE_RX) {
   827			SD_VP_CTL = SD_VPRX_CTL;
   828			SD_DCMPS_CTL = SD_DCMPS_RX_CTL;
   829			if (CHK_SD_DDR50(sd_card))
   830				ddr_rx = true;
   831		} else {
   832			SD_VP_CTL = SD_VPTX_CTL;
   833			SD_DCMPS_CTL = SD_DCMPS_TX_CTL;
   834		}
   835	
   836		if (chip->asic_code) {
   837			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, CLK_CTL, CHANGE_CLK,
   838						     CHANGE_CLK);
   839			if (retval)
   840				return retval;
   841			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0x1F,
   842						     sample_point);
   843			if (retval)
   844				return retval;
   845			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VPCLK0_CTL,
   846						     PHASE_NOT_RESET, 0);
   847			if (retval)
   848				return retval;
   849			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VPCLK0_CTL,
   850						     PHASE_NOT_RESET, PHASE_NOT_RESET);
   851			if (retval)
   852				return retval;
   853			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, CLK_CTL, CHANGE_CLK, 0);
   854			if (retval)
   855				return retval;
   856		} else {
   857			rtsx_read_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, &val);
   858			dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_VP_CTL: 0x%x\n", val);
   859			rtsx_read_register(chip, SD_DCMPS_CTL, &val);
   860			dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_DCMPS_CTL: 0x%x\n", val);
   861	
   862			if (ddr_rx) {
   863				retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL,
   864							     PHASE_CHANGE,
   865							     PHASE_CHANGE);
   866				if (retval)
   867					return retval;
 > 868				usleep_range(50);
   869				retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF,
   870							     PHASE_CHANGE |
   871							     PHASE_NOT_RESET |
   872							     sample_point);
   873				if (retval)
   874					return retval;
   875			} else {
   876				retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, CLK_CTL,
   877							     CHANGE_CLK, CHANGE_CLK);
   878				if (retval)
   879					return retval;
   880				usleep_range(50);
   881				retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF,
   882							     PHASE_NOT_RESET |
   883							     sample_point);
   884				if (retval)
   885					return retval;
   886			}
   887			usleep_range(100);
   888	
   889			rtsx_init_cmd(chip);
   890			rtsx_add_cmd(chip, WRITE_REG_CMD, SD_DCMPS_CTL, DCMPS_CHANGE,
   891				     DCMPS_CHANGE);
   892			rtsx_add_cmd(chip, CHECK_REG_CMD, SD_DCMPS_CTL,
   893				     DCMPS_CHANGE_DONE, DCMPS_CHANGE_DONE);
   894			retval = rtsx_send_cmd(chip, SD_CARD, 100);
   895			if (retval != STATUS_SUCCESS)
   896				goto fail;
   897	
   898			val = *rtsx_get_cmd_data(chip);
   899			if (val & DCMPS_ERROR)
   900				goto fail;
   901	
   902			if ((val & DCMPS_CURRENT_PHASE) != sample_point)
   903				goto fail;
   904	
   905			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_DCMPS_CTL,
   906						     DCMPS_CHANGE, 0);
   907			if (retval)
   908				return retval;
   909			if (ddr_rx) {
   910				retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL,
   911							     PHASE_CHANGE, 0);
   912				if (retval)
   913					return retval;
   914			} else {
   915				retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, CLK_CTL,
   916							     CHANGE_CLK, 0);
   917				if (retval)
   918					return retval;
   919			}
   920	
   921			usleep_range(50);
   922		}
   923	
   924		retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_CFG1, SD_ASYNC_FIFO_NOT_RST, 0);
   925		if (retval)
   926			return retval;
   927	
   928		return STATUS_SUCCESS;
   929	
   930	fail:
   931		rtsx_read_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, &val);
   932		dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_VP_CTL: 0x%x\n", val);
   933		rtsx_read_register(chip, SD_DCMPS_CTL, &val);
   934		dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_DCMPS_CTL: 0x%x\n", val);
   935	
   936		rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_DCMPS_CTL, DCMPS_CHANGE, 0);
   937		rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, PHASE_CHANGE, 0);
   938		mdelay(10);
   939		sd_reset_dcm(chip, tune_dir);
   940		return STATUS_FAIL;
   941	}
   942	

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

[kernel test robot]

Hi kenechukwu,

kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:

[auto build test ERROR on staging/staging-testing]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/kenechukwu-maduechesi/staging-rts5208-Replace-delay-function/20231018-090457
base:   staging/staging-testing
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231018004300.GA3189%40ubuntu
patch subject: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.
config: i386-allmodconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231106/202311060455.MQsyG6kq-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 16.0.4 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git ae42196bc493ffe877a7e3dff8be32035dea4d07)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231106/202311060455.MQsyG6kq-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202311060455.MQsyG6kq-lkp@intel.com/

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

>> drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c:868:19: error: too few arguments to function call, expected 2, have 1
                           usleep_range(50);
                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~   ^
   include/linux/delay.h:66:20: note: 'usleep_range' declared here
   static inline void usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
                      ^
   drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c:880:19: error: too few arguments to function call, expected 2, have 1
                           usleep_range(50);
                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~   ^
   include/linux/delay.h:66:20: note: 'usleep_range' declared here
   static inline void usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
                      ^
   drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c:887:19: error: too few arguments to function call, expected 2, have 1
                   usleep_range(100);
                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~    ^
   include/linux/delay.h:66:20: note: 'usleep_range' declared here
   static inline void usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
                      ^
   drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c:921:18: error: too few arguments to function call, expected 2, have 1
                   usleep_range(50);
                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~   ^
   include/linux/delay.h:66:20: note: 'usleep_range' declared here
   static inline void usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
                      ^
   drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c:1419:19: error: too few arguments to function call, expected 2, have 1
                   usleep_range(100);
                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~    ^
   include/linux/delay.h:66:20: note: 'usleep_range' declared here
   static inline void usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
                      ^
   5 errors generated.


vim +868 drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c

   814	
   815	static int sd_change_phase(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u8 sample_point, u8 tune_dir)
   816	{
   817		struct sd_info *sd_card = &chip->sd_card;
   818		u16 SD_VP_CTL, SD_DCMPS_CTL;
   819		u8 val;
   820		int retval;
   821		bool ddr_rx = false;
   822	
   823		dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "%s (sample_point = %d, tune_dir = %d)\n",
   824			__func__, sample_point, tune_dir);
   825	
   826		if (tune_dir == TUNE_RX) {
   827			SD_VP_CTL = SD_VPRX_CTL;
   828			SD_DCMPS_CTL = SD_DCMPS_RX_CTL;
   829			if (CHK_SD_DDR50(sd_card))
   830				ddr_rx = true;
   831		} else {
   832			SD_VP_CTL = SD_VPTX_CTL;
   833			SD_DCMPS_CTL = SD_DCMPS_TX_CTL;
   834		}
   835	
   836		if (chip->asic_code) {
   837			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, CLK_CTL, CHANGE_CLK,
   838						     CHANGE_CLK);
   839			if (retval)
   840				return retval;
   841			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0x1F,
   842						     sample_point);
   843			if (retval)
   844				return retval;
   845			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VPCLK0_CTL,
   846						     PHASE_NOT_RESET, 0);
   847			if (retval)
   848				return retval;
   849			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VPCLK0_CTL,
   850						     PHASE_NOT_RESET, PHASE_NOT_RESET);
   851			if (retval)
   852				return retval;
   853			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, CLK_CTL, CHANGE_CLK, 0);
   854			if (retval)
   855				return retval;
   856		} else {
   857			rtsx_read_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, &val);
   858			dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_VP_CTL: 0x%x\n", val);
   859			rtsx_read_register(chip, SD_DCMPS_CTL, &val);
   860			dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_DCMPS_CTL: 0x%x\n", val);
   861	
   862			if (ddr_rx) {
   863				retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL,
   864							     PHASE_CHANGE,
   865							     PHASE_CHANGE);
   866				if (retval)
   867					return retval;
 > 868				usleep_range(50);
   869				retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF,
   870							     PHASE_CHANGE |
   871							     PHASE_NOT_RESET |
   872							     sample_point);
   873				if (retval)
   874					return retval;
   875			} else {
   876				retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, CLK_CTL,
   877							     CHANGE_CLK, CHANGE_CLK);
   878				if (retval)
   879					return retval;
   880				usleep_range(50);
   881				retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF,
   882							     PHASE_NOT_RESET |
   883							     sample_point);
   884				if (retval)
   885					return retval;
   886			}
   887			usleep_range(100);
   888	
   889			rtsx_init_cmd(chip);
   890			rtsx_add_cmd(chip, WRITE_REG_CMD, SD_DCMPS_CTL, DCMPS_CHANGE,
   891				     DCMPS_CHANGE);
   892			rtsx_add_cmd(chip, CHECK_REG_CMD, SD_DCMPS_CTL,
   893				     DCMPS_CHANGE_DONE, DCMPS_CHANGE_DONE);
   894			retval = rtsx_send_cmd(chip, SD_CARD, 100);
   895			if (retval != STATUS_SUCCESS)
   896				goto fail;
   897	
   898			val = *rtsx_get_cmd_data(chip);
   899			if (val & DCMPS_ERROR)
   900				goto fail;
   901	
   902			if ((val & DCMPS_CURRENT_PHASE) != sample_point)
   903				goto fail;
   904	
   905			retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_DCMPS_CTL,
   906						     DCMPS_CHANGE, 0);
   907			if (retval)
   908				return retval;
   909			if (ddr_rx) {
   910				retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL,
   911							     PHASE_CHANGE, 0);
   912				if (retval)
   913					return retval;
   914			} else {
   915				retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, CLK_CTL,
   916							     CHANGE_CLK, 0);
   917				if (retval)
   918					return retval;
   919			}
   920	
   921			usleep_range(50);
   922		}
   923	
   924		retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_CFG1, SD_ASYNC_FIFO_NOT_RST, 0);
   925		if (retval)
   926			return retval;
   927	
   928		return STATUS_SUCCESS;
   929	
   930	fail:
   931		rtsx_read_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, &val);
   932		dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_VP_CTL: 0x%x\n", val);
   933		rtsx_read_register(chip, SD_DCMPS_CTL, &val);
   934		dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_DCMPS_CTL: 0x%x\n", val);
   935	
   936		rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_DCMPS_CTL, DCMPS_CHANGE, 0);
   937		rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, PHASE_CHANGE, 0);
   938		mdelay(10);
   939		sd_reset_dcm(chip, tune_dir);
   940		return STATUS_FAIL;
   941	}
   942	

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki