All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] staging: fbtft: replace udelay with usleep_range
@ 2022-07-09 10:06 Christos Kollintzas
  2022-07-09 10:30   ` Greg KH
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Christos Kollintzas @ 2022-07-09 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gregkh, dri-devel, linux-fbdev, linux-staging, linux-kernel

Adhere to Linux kernel coding style.

Reported by checkpatch:

CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay

Signed-off-by: Christos Kollintzas <c.kollintzas.92@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c | 18 +++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c
index c680160d6380..eeafbab4ace1 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c
@@ -32,27 +32,27 @@ static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par)
 
 	/* oscillator start */
 	write_reg(par, 0x003A, 0x0001);	/*Oscillator 0: stop, 1: operation */
-	udelay(100);
+	usleep_range(100, 110);
 
 	/* y-setting */
 	write_reg(par, 0x0024, 0x007B);	/* amplitude setting */
-	udelay(10);
+	usleep_range(10, 15);
 	write_reg(par, 0x0025, 0x003B);	/* amplitude setting */
 	write_reg(par, 0x0026, 0x0034);	/* amplitude setting */
-	udelay(10);
+	usleep_range(10, 15);
 	write_reg(par, 0x0027, 0x0004);	/* amplitude setting */
 	write_reg(par, 0x0052, 0x0025);	/* circuit setting 1 */
-	udelay(10);
+	usleep_range(10, 15);
 	write_reg(par, 0x0053, 0x0033);	/* circuit setting 2 */
 	write_reg(par, 0x0061, 0x001C);	/* adjustment V10 positive polarity */
-	udelay(10);
+	usleep_range(10, 15);
 	write_reg(par, 0x0062, 0x002C);	/* adjustment V9 negative polarity */
 	write_reg(par, 0x0063, 0x0022);	/* adjustment V34 positive polarity */
-	udelay(10);
+	usleep_range(10, 15);
 	write_reg(par, 0x0064, 0x0027);	/* adjustment V31 negative polarity */
-	udelay(10);
+	usleep_range(10, 15);
 	write_reg(par, 0x0065, 0x0014);	/* adjustment V61 negative polarity */
-	udelay(10);
+	usleep_range(10, 15);
 	write_reg(par, 0x0066, 0x0010);	/* adjustment V61 negative polarity */
 
 	/* Basical clock for 1 line (BASECOUNT[7:0]) number specified */
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par)
 
 	/* Power supply setting */
 	write_reg(par, 0x0019, 0x0000);	/* DC/DC output setting */
-	udelay(200);
+	usleep_range(200, 210);
 	write_reg(par, 0x001A, 0x1000);	/* DC/DC frequency setting */
 	write_reg(par, 0x001B, 0x0023);	/* DC/DC rising setting */
 	write_reg(par, 0x001C, 0x0C01);	/* Regulator voltage setting */
-- 
2.20.1


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] staging: fbtft: replace udelay with usleep_range
  2022-07-09 10:06 [PATCH] staging: fbtft: replace udelay with usleep_range Christos Kollintzas
@ 2022-07-09 10:30   ` Greg KH
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2022-07-09 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christos Kollintzas; +Cc: dri-devel, linux-fbdev, linux-staging, linux-kernel

On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 01:06:56PM +0300, Christos Kollintzas wrote:
> Adhere to Linux kernel coding style.
> 
> Reported by checkpatch:
> 
> CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christos Kollintzas <c.kollintzas.92@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c | 18 +++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c
> index c680160d6380..eeafbab4ace1 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c
> @@ -32,27 +32,27 @@ static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par)
>  
>  	/* oscillator start */
>  	write_reg(par, 0x003A, 0x0001);	/*Oscillator 0: stop, 1: operation */
> -	udelay(100);
> +	usleep_range(100, 110);

When doing these types of changes, you really need access to the
hardware involved in order to be able to properly test it.

Especially for this type of function which is trying to do timing
changes which the hardware requires.

Did you test this on the real hardware and did it work properly?

thanks,

greg k-h

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] staging: fbtft: replace udelay with usleep_range
@ 2022-07-09 10:30   ` Greg KH
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2022-07-09 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christos Kollintzas; +Cc: linux-fbdev, linux-staging, linux-kernel, dri-devel

On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 01:06:56PM +0300, Christos Kollintzas wrote:
> Adhere to Linux kernel coding style.
> 
> Reported by checkpatch:
> 
> CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christos Kollintzas <c.kollintzas.92@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c | 18 +++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c
> index c680160d6380..eeafbab4ace1 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c
> @@ -32,27 +32,27 @@ static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par)
>  
>  	/* oscillator start */
>  	write_reg(par, 0x003A, 0x0001);	/*Oscillator 0: stop, 1: operation */
> -	udelay(100);
> +	usleep_range(100, 110);

When doing these types of changes, you really need access to the
hardware involved in order to be able to properly test it.

Especially for this type of function which is trying to do timing
changes which the hardware requires.

Did you test this on the real hardware and did it work properly?

thanks,

greg k-h

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] staging: fbtft: replace udelay with usleep_range
  2022-07-09 10:30   ` Greg KH
@ 2022-07-10 13:00     ` Christos Kollintzas
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Christos Kollintzas @ 2022-07-10 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Greg KH; +Cc: dri-devel, linux-fbdev, linux-staging, linux-kernel

On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 12:30:51PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 01:06:56PM +0300, Christos Kollintzas wrote:
> > Adhere to Linux kernel coding style.
> > 
> > Reported by checkpatch:
> > 
> > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christos Kollintzas <c.kollintzas.92@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c
> > index c680160d6380..eeafbab4ace1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c
> > @@ -32,27 +32,27 @@ static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par)
> >  
> >  	/* oscillator start */
> >  	write_reg(par, 0x003A, 0x0001);	/*Oscillator 0: stop, 1: operation */
> > -	udelay(100);
> > +	usleep_range(100, 110);
> 
> When doing these types of changes, you really need access to the
> hardware involved in order to be able to properly test it.
> 
> Especially for this type of function which is trying to do timing
> changes which the hardware requires.
> 
> Did you test this on the real hardware and did it work properly?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

I did not.

I will try to find the hardware and send a patch that is
properly tested.

thanks,

Christos Kollintzas

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] staging: fbtft: replace udelay with usleep_range
@ 2022-07-10 13:00     ` Christos Kollintzas
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Christos Kollintzas @ 2022-07-10 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Greg KH; +Cc: linux-fbdev, linux-staging, linux-kernel, dri-devel

On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 12:30:51PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 01:06:56PM +0300, Christos Kollintzas wrote:
> > Adhere to Linux kernel coding style.
> > 
> > Reported by checkpatch:
> > 
> > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christos Kollintzas <c.kollintzas.92@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c
> > index c680160d6380..eeafbab4ace1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c
> > @@ -32,27 +32,27 @@ static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par)
> >  
> >  	/* oscillator start */
> >  	write_reg(par, 0x003A, 0x0001);	/*Oscillator 0: stop, 1: operation */
> > -	udelay(100);
> > +	usleep_range(100, 110);
> 
> When doing these types of changes, you really need access to the
> hardware involved in order to be able to properly test it.
> 
> Especially for this type of function which is trying to do timing
> changes which the hardware requires.
> 
> Did you test this on the real hardware and did it work properly?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

I did not.

I will try to find the hardware and send a patch that is
properly tested.

thanks,

Christos Kollintzas

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-07-10 13:00 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-07-09 10:06 [PATCH] staging: fbtft: replace udelay with usleep_range Christos Kollintzas
2022-07-09 10:30 ` Greg KH
2022-07-09 10:30   ` Greg KH
2022-07-10 13:00   ` Christos Kollintzas
2022-07-10 13:00     ` Christos Kollintzas

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.