On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, Soumyajit Deb wrote:
> I had the same doubt the other day about the replacement of udelay() with
> usleep_range(). The corresponding range for the single argument value of
> udelay() is quite confusing as I couldn't decide the range. But as much as I
> noticed checkpatch.pl gives warning for replacing udelay() with
> usleep_range() by checking the argument value of udelay(). In the
> documentation, it is written udelay() should be used for a sleep time of at
> most 10 microseconds but between 10 microseconds and 20 milliseconds,
> usleep_range() should be used.
> I think the range is code specific and will depend on what range is
> acceptable and doesn't break the code.
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
The range depends on the associated hardware. Just because checkpatch
suggests something doesn't mean that it is easy to address the problem.
julia
>
> More clarification on this issue will be helpful.
>
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, 15:17 Julia Lawall, <julia.lawall@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, John Wyatt wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2020-03-29 at 11:28 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, John B. Wyatt IV wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 Are the docs out of date, or, is this a checkpatch issue?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);
> > >
> > > usleep_range should have a range, eg usleep_range(50,
> 100);. But it
> > > is
> > > hard to know a priori what the range should be. So it is
> probably
> > > better
> > > to leave the code alone.
> >
> > Understood.
> >
> > With the question I wrote in the commit message:
> >
> > "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?"
> >
> > Is usleep_range too expensive for this operation?
> >
> > Why does checkpatch favor usleep_range while the docs favor
> udelay?
>
> I don't know the answer in detail, but it is quite possible that
> checkpatch doesn't pay any attention to the delay argument.
> Checkpatch is
> a perl script that highlights things that may be of concern. It
> is not a
> precise static analsis tool.
>
> As a matter of form, all of your Please review comments should
> have been
> put below the ---. Currently, if someone had wanted to apply
> the patch,
> you would make them do extra work to remove this information.
>
> julia
>
> >
> > >
> > > julia
> > >
> > > > gpiod_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 1);
> > > > mdelay(120);
> > > > }
> > > > --
> > > > 2.25.1
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to
> the Google
> > > > Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
> from it,
> > > > send an email to
> outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> > > > To view this discussion on the web visit
> > > >https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20200329092204.770405-1-
> jbwyatt4%40gmail.com
> > > > .
> > > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> it, send an email to
> outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/alpine.DEB.2.21.20032911
> 44460.2990%40hadrien.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
