On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 07:39:48AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 02:20:10AM +0200, Hassan Shahbazi wrote: > > Fix the checkpath.pl issue on fb_watterott.c. write_vmem and > > write_vmem_8bit functions are within non-atomic context and can > > safely use usleep_range. > > see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt > > > > Signed-off-by: Hassan Shahbazi <hassan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c > > index 76b25df376b8..afcc86a17995 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c > > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int write_vmem(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len) > > par->txbuf.buf, 10 + par->info->fix.line_length); > > if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > - udelay(300); > > + usleep_range(300, 310); > > } > > > > return 0; > > @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ static int write_vmem_8bit(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len) > > par->txbuf.buf, 10 + par->info->var.xres); > > if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > - udelay(700); > > + usleep_range(700, 710); > > How do you know that these ranges are ok? Are you able to test these > changes with real hardware? > > thanks, > > greg k-h No, I don't have the hardware to test with. I just used the current value as the minimum and added an epsilon to it for the maximum param. best, hassan shahbazi _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
