On Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 12:15 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:36:24PM +0530, Payal Kshirsagar wrote:
> > Since usleep_range is built on top of hrtimers, the
> > wakeup will be very precise (ish), thus a simple
> > usleep function would likely introduce a large number
> > of undesired interrupts.
> > Thus udelay replaced with usleep_range.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Payal Kshirsagar <payal.s.kshirsagar.98@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/speakup/speakup_decpc.c | 14 +++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/speakup/speakup_decpc.c
> b/drivers/staging/speakup/speakup_decpc.c
> > index 798c42d..10ca19b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/speakup/speakup_decpc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/speakup/speakup_decpc.c
> > @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ static int dt_waitbit(int bit)
> >       while (--timeout > 0) {
> >               if ((dt_getstatus() & bit) == bit)
> >                       return 1;
> > -             udelay(50);
> > +             usleep_range(50, 50 + 10);
>
> I've said this in the past, only do this type of change if you can
> actually test it, and know it will be ok.  For some stuff like this, it
> _might_ be ok, but you just expanded the timeout range potentially a lot
> longer than before, and do we know that is ok?
>
> I sure do not :)
>
> So just leave these things alone unless you know the hardware will keep
> working properly.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>


Okay I'll drop this patch .
Regards,
Payal

>