Re: [PATCH 1/8] staging: vchiq_arm: replace sleep() with usleep_range()

[Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Am 14.09.21 um 23:35 schrieb Gaston Gonzalez:
> usleep_range() should be used instead of sleep() when sleepings range
> from 10 us to 20 ms, [1].
>
> Reported by checkpatch.pl
>
> [1] Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
> ---
>  drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> index b25369a13452..0214ae37e01f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> @@ -824,7 +824,7 @@ vchiq_bulk_transmit(unsigned int handle, const void *data, unsigned int size,
>  		if (status != VCHIQ_RETRY)
>  			break;
>  
> -		msleep(1);
> +		usleep_range(1000, 1100);

from my understanding the usage of usleep_range() and hrtimers isn't
necessary here. The intention is to sleep a little bit and not "exactly"
1 ms.

@Phil Elwell: what is your opinion?

>  	}
>  
>  	return status;
> @@ -861,7 +861,7 @@ enum vchiq_status vchiq_bulk_receive(unsigned int handle, void *data,
>  		if (status != VCHIQ_RETRY)
>  			break;
>  
> -		msleep(1);
> +		usleep_range(1000, 1100);
dito
>  	}
>  
>  	return status;