Fix style issue with usleep_range being reported as preferred over udelay. Issue reported by checkpatch. Please review. As written in Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst udelay is the generally preferred API. hrtimers, as noted in the docs, may be too expensive for this short timer. Are the docs out of date, or, is this a checkpatch issue? Signed-off-by: John B. Wyatt IV <jbwyatt4@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c index eeeeec97ad27..019c8cce6bab 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__); gpiod_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 0); - udelay(20); + usleep_range(20, 20); gpiod_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 1); mdelay(120); } -- 2.25.1 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
