On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 11:51 AM Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Function 'mt7621_pcie_init_ports' is never called in atomic context. > It calls mdelay() to busily wait, which is not necessary. mdelay() > can be replaced with msleep(). > > Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/staging/mt7621-pci/pci-mt7621.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/mt7621-pci/pci-mt7621.c b/drivers/staging/mt7621-pci/pci-mt7621.c > index fb9aa6b..14cec23 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/mt7621-pci/pci-mt7621.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/mt7621-pci/pci-mt7621.c > @@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ static void mt7621_pcie_init_ports(struct mt7621_pcie *pcie) > rt_sysc_m32(PCIE_CLK_GEN_EN, PCIE_CLK_GEN_DIS, RALINK_PCIE_CLK_GEN); > rt_sysc_m32(PCIE_CLK_GEN1_DIS, PCIE_CLK_GEN1_EN, RALINK_PCIE_CLK_GEN1); > rt_sysc_m32(PCIE_CLK_GEN_DIS, PCIE_CLK_GEN_EN, RALINK_PCIE_CLK_GEN); > - mdelay(50); > + msleep(50); > rt_sysc_m32(RALINK_PCIE_RST, 0, RALINK_RSTCTRL); >From a software point of view it makes sense to remove the busy-wait. >From a hardware perspective it may still make sense to keep it. Can you guarantee that the PCIE_RST is done at the correct time. I haven't looked thoroughly at the datasheet yet, but I can imagine the level has to shift within a certain time frame? Or doesn't that make too much of a difference? Perhaps mention that in your commit message? _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
