On 6/29/23 09:53, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 12:47 AM Srinivasan Shanmugam > <srinivasan.shanmugam@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Fixes the following category of checkpatch warning: >> >> WARNING: msleep < 20ms can sleep for up to 20ms; see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst >> + msleep(10); >> >> Cc: Rodrigo Siqueira <Rodrigo.Siqueira@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: Aurabindo Pillai <aurabindo.pillai@xxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Srinivasan Shanmugam <srinivasan.shanmugam@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_helpers.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_helpers.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_helpers.c >> index c13b70629be6..a6be04ad387f 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_helpers.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_helpers.c >> @@ -643,7 +643,7 @@ static bool execute_synaptics_rc_command(struct drm_dp_aux *aux, >> if (rc_cmd == cmd) >> // active is 0 >> break; >> - msleep(10); >> + msleep(20); > > This doesn't seem like the right fix. The warning seems somewhat > bogus to begin with. If the length really matters, I guess we should > use usleep_range(), but if not, I don't see any reason not to leave it > as is. Sure, it might sleep longer, but it might not. Better to have > the code stay as is since 10 was presumably the intended sleep time. > I agree. Harry > Alex > > >> } >> >> // read rc result >> -- >> 2.25.1 >>
