On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:28:00PM -0300, Leonardo Brás wrote: > Changes some udelay(n) for n >= 10 to usleep_range(n, n+x) as recommended by > checkpatch.pl.
Please properly wrap your changelog lines at 72 columns or close to that. > > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Brás <leobra...@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c | 2 +- > drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_tinylcd.c | 2 +- > drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c | 19 +++++++++---------- > drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c | 4 ++-- > 5 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c > b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c > index f6f30f5bf15a..7a24bde7ca8d 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c > @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static void reset(struct fbtft_par *par) > dev_dbg(par->info->device, "%s()\n", __func__); > > gpio_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 0); > - udelay(20); > + usleep_range(20, 25); > gpio_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 1); > mdelay(120); > } > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c > b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c > index 5d3b76ca74d8..e2a62677b65b 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c > @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ static void write_reg8_bus8(struct fbtft_par *par, int > len, ...) > } > len--; > > - udelay(100); > + usleep_range(100, 101); No, that's just shutting checkpatch up and not doing the correct thing here. This is not ok, you need to provide a valid range that will actually help. What you did here is not going to do fix anything. sorry, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
