[PATCH] staging: fbtft/fb_ra8875: replace udelay with usleep_range

[PATCH] staging: fbtft/fb_ra8875: replace udelay with usleep_range

[Shay Power]

Signed-off-by: Shay Power <shaythomaspower@gmail.com>
---
 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 0ab1de6647d0..edd467c6bf1a 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c
@@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ static void write_reg8_bus8(struct fbtft_par *par, int len, ...)
 	}
 	len--;
 
-	udelay(100);
+	usleep_range(100, 150);
 
 	if (len) {
 		buf = (u8 *)par->buf;
@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ 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, 150);
 }
 
 static int write_vmem16_bus8(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len)
-- 
2.50.1

Re: [PATCH] staging: fbtft/fb_ra8875: replace udelay with usleep_range

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 11:42 PM Shay Power <shaythomaspower@gmail.com> wrote:

You must provide a commit message explaining "why?".


...

> -       udelay(100);
> +       usleep_range(100, 150);

In both cases this, besides not using fsleep(), moves from atomic to
sleepable context. This is the must to be explained in the commit
message as this is the main point of the change AFAICS.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko