On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 03:57:01PM +0100, Marc Dietrich wrote: > Hi Simran, > > Am Donnerstag, 2. März 2017, 15:48:13 CET schrieb SIMRAN SINGHAL: > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:06:40 PM UTC+5:30, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017, simran singhal wrote: > > > > Resolve strict checkpatch USLEEP_RANGE checks by converting delays and > > > > sleeps as described in ./Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt. > > > > > > > > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay; see Documentation/ > > > > timers/timers-howto.txt > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhal...@xxxxxxxxx <javascript:>> > > I prefer not to change this. The whole interrupt routine is very wonky, and > changing some delays might break the communication with the i2c master. Also > this is in interrupt context, so a change to usleep_range may not by > justified. Yeah, I think this is going to trigger a WARN_ON from somewhere in the scheduler because of the interrupt context. I suppose checkpatch could be made smarter about this, though I doubt my perl skills would be up to it. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
