On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 04:04:02PM +0000, Tanjuate Brunostar wrote: > Replace the use of udelay by usleep_range as suggested by checkpatch: > > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay; see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst > + udelay(30); > > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay; see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst > + udelay(50); > > Signed-off-by: Tanjuate Brunostar <tanjubrunostar0@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > > v2: changed the max values of the usleep_rage instances as they cannot > be equal to the min values as suggested by checkpatch > > drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c > index 14449f8afad5..a9724ca5eccf 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c > @@ -3235,7 +3235,7 @@ static int ms_write_multiple_pages(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u16 old_blk, > return STATUS_FAIL; > } > > - udelay(30); > + usleep_range(30, 31); Did you test this? And making the range 1 really doesn't make any sense, right? thanks, greg k-h
