[PATCH] staging: rts5208: ms.c: Remove two udelay calls and use usleep_range instead

[PATCH] staging: rts5208: ms.c: Remove two udelay calls and use usleep_range instead

[Sebastian Luchetti]

This patch fixes the issue:
CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay; see
Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
in two occurrences.

Signed-off-by: Sebastian Luchetti <luchetti.linux@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
index 2a6fab5c117a..7292c8f013fd 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
@@ -3236,7 +3236,7 @@ static int ms_write_multiple_pages(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u16 old_blk,
 			return STATUS_FAIL;
 		}
 
-		udelay(30);
+		usleep_range(27, 32);
 
 		rtsx_init_cmd(chip);
 
@@ -4158,7 +4158,7 @@ int mg_set_ICV(struct scsi_cmnd *srb, struct rtsx_chip *chip)
 
 #ifdef MG_SET_ICV_SLOW
 	for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
-		udelay(50);
+		usleep_range(47, 52);
 
 		rtsx_init_cmd(chip);
 
-- 
2.30.2

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: ms.c: Remove two udelay calls and use usleep_range instead

[Greg KH]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 02:27:12PM +0200, Sebastian Luchetti wrote:
> This patch fixes the issue:
> CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay; see
> Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
> in two occurrences.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Luchetti <luchetti.linux@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
> index 2a6fab5c117a..7292c8f013fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
> @@ -3236,7 +3236,7 @@ static int ms_write_multiple_pages(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u16 old_blk,
>  			return STATUS_FAIL;
>  		}
>  
> -		udelay(30);
> +		usleep_range(27, 32);

These are very odd choices of a number, where did they come from?

And as the other thread on this mailing list a few hours ago describes,
for this same type of change, you need to test this with the actual
hardware to know if this works properly or not.  Have you done so?

thanks,

greg k-h

RE: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: ms.c: Remove two udelay calls and use usleep_range instead

[David Laight]

From: Greg KH
> Sent: 17 October 2021 14:42
> 
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 02:27:12PM +0200, Sebastian Luchetti wrote:
> > This patch fixes the issue:
> > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay; see
> > Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
> > in two occurrences.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Luchetti <luchetti.linux@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
> > index 2a6fab5c117a..7292c8f013fd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
> > @@ -3236,7 +3236,7 @@ static int ms_write_multiple_pages(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u16 old_blk,
> >  			return STATUS_FAIL;
> >  		}
> >
> > -		udelay(30);
> > +		usleep_range(27, 32);
> 
> These are very odd choices of a number, where did they come from?
> 
> And as the other thread on this mailing list a few hours ago describes,
> for this same type of change, you need to test this with the actual
> hardware to know if this works properly or not.  Have you done so?

You also need to check that it is actually safe to sleep.
The style of the commit messages doesn't give massive
confidence that you have checked.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)