Hi Kenechukwu, On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 06:03:05PM -0700, kenechukwu maduechesi wrote: > Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling. The reason is not the precise handling, quite the opposite. > Reported by checkpatch: > > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay Can you tell why?[*] > Signed-off-by: kenechukwu maduechesi <maduechesik@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c > index 74c4f476b3a4..059f99b0a727 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c > @@ -865,7 +865,7 @@ static int sd_change_phase(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u8 sample_point, u8 tune_dir) > PHASE_CHANGE); > if (retval) > return retval; > - udelay(50); > + usleep_range(50); What is the range you will be sleeping, now? Andi [*] Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst
