[PATCH] Staging: wfx: CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay

[PATCH] Staging: wfx: CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay

[Leonardo Araujo]

Fixes the checks reported by checkpatch.pl for usleep_range.

Signed-off-by: Leonardo Araujo <leonardo.aa88@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/wfx/bh.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/bh.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/bh.c
index a0f9d1b53019..ebc7eaf93ef0 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/wfx/bh.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/bh.c
@@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ void wfx_bh_poll_irq(struct wfx_dev *wdev)
 			dev_err(wdev->dev, "time out while polling control register\n");
 			return;
 		}
-		udelay(200);
+		usleep_range(200, 200);
 	}
 	wfx_bh_request_rx(wdev);
 }
-- 
2.29.0

Re: [PATCH] Staging: wfx: CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 01:00:51PM -0300, Leonardo Araujo wrote:
> Fixes the checks reported by checkpatch.pl for usleep_range.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Araujo <leonardo.aa88@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/wfx/bh.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/bh.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/bh.c
> index a0f9d1b53019..ebc7eaf93ef0 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/bh.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/bh.c
> @@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ void wfx_bh_poll_irq(struct wfx_dev *wdev)
>  			dev_err(wdev->dev, "time out while polling control register\n");
>  			return;
>  		}
> -		udelay(200);
> +		usleep_range(200, 200);

Do you have the hardware to verify that this is the correct fix for
this?

You can not just blindly make this type of change here, sorry, otherwise
we would have done so long ago with a simple search/replace :)

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] Staging: wfx: CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2022-02-07 at 17:46 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 01:00:51PM -0300, Leonardo Araujo wrote:
> > Fixes the checks reported by checkpatch.pl for usleep_range.
[]
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/bh.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/bh.c
[]
> > @@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ void wfx_bh_poll_irq(struct wfx_dev *wdev)
> >  			dev_err(wdev->dev, "time out while polling control register\n");
> >  			return;
> >  		}
> > -		udelay(200);
> > +		usleep_range(200, 200);

range with the same low/high values is pretty useless.

And Leonardo, checkpatch should have warned you about this.
You, as a novice kernel submitter, should always use it on patches
you create before you send them out for review.

> Do you have the hardware to verify that this is the correct fix for
> this?
> 
> You can not just blindly make this type of change here, sorry, otherwise
> we would have done so long ago with a simple search/replace :)

Greg, you keep writing this but treewide search/replace is almost never done.