* [PATCH] staging: fbtft: fb_watterott: fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay @ 2020-11-01 0:20 Hassan Shahbazi 2020-11-01 6:39 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Hassan Shahbazi @ 2020-11-01 0:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linus.walleij Cc: dri-devel, linux-fbdev, devel, linux-kernel, Hassan Shahbazi Fix the checkpath.pl issue on fb_watterott.c. write_vmem and write_vmem_8bit functions are within non-atomic context and can safely use usleep_range. see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt Signed-off-by: Hassan Shahbazi <hassan@ninchat.com> --- drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c index 76b25df376b8..afcc86a17995 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int write_vmem(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len) par->txbuf.buf, 10 + par->info->fix.line_length); if (ret < 0) return ret; - udelay(300); + usleep_range(300, 310); } return 0; @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ static int write_vmem_8bit(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len) par->txbuf.buf, 10 + par->info->var.xres); if (ret < 0) return ret; - udelay(700); + usleep_range(700, 710); } return 0; -- 2.25.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] staging: fbtft: fb_watterott: fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay 2020-11-01 0:20 [PATCH] staging: fbtft: fb_watterott: fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay Hassan Shahbazi @ 2020-11-01 6:39 ` Greg KH 2020-11-01 10:32 ` Hassan Shahbazi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2020-11-01 6:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hassan Shahbazi Cc: linus.walleij, devel, Hassan Shahbazi, linux-fbdev, linux-kernel, dri-devel On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 02:20:10AM +0200, Hassan Shahbazi wrote: > Fix the checkpath.pl issue on fb_watterott.c. write_vmem and > write_vmem_8bit functions are within non-atomic context and can > safely use usleep_range. > see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt > > Signed-off-by: Hassan Shahbazi <hassan@ninchat.com> > --- > drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c > index 76b25df376b8..afcc86a17995 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int write_vmem(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len) > par->txbuf.buf, 10 + par->info->fix.line_length); > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > - udelay(300); > + usleep_range(300, 310); > } > > return 0; > @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ static int write_vmem_8bit(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len) > par->txbuf.buf, 10 + par->info->var.xres); > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > - udelay(700); > + usleep_range(700, 710); How do you know that these ranges are ok? Are you able to test these changes with real hardware? thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] staging: fbtft: fb_watterott: fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay 2020-11-01 6:39 ` Greg KH @ 2020-11-01 10:32 ` Hassan Shahbazi 2020-11-06 10:01 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Hassan Shahbazi @ 2020-11-01 10:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: dri-devel, linux-fbdev, devel, linux-kernel On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 07:39:48AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 02:20:10AM +0200, Hassan Shahbazi wrote: > > Fix the checkpath.pl issue on fb_watterott.c. write_vmem and > > write_vmem_8bit functions are within non-atomic context and can > > safely use usleep_range. > > see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt > > > > Signed-off-by: Hassan Shahbazi <hassan@ninchat.com> > > --- > > drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c > > index 76b25df376b8..afcc86a17995 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c > > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int write_vmem(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len) > > par->txbuf.buf, 10 + par->info->fix.line_length); > > if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > - udelay(300); > > + usleep_range(300, 310); > > } > > > > return 0; > > @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ static int write_vmem_8bit(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len) > > par->txbuf.buf, 10 + par->info->var.xres); > > if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > - udelay(700); > > + usleep_range(700, 710); > > How do you know that these ranges are ok? Are you able to test these > changes with real hardware? > > thanks, > > greg k-h No, I don't have the hardware to test with. I just used the current value as the minimum and added an epsilon to it for the maximum param. best, hassan shahbazi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] staging: fbtft: fb_watterott: fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay 2020-11-01 10:32 ` Hassan Shahbazi @ 2020-11-06 10:01 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2020-11-06 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hassan Shahbazi; +Cc: dri-devel, linux-fbdev, devel, linux-kernel On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 12:32:44PM +0200, Hassan Shahbazi wrote: > On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 07:39:48AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 02:20:10AM +0200, Hassan Shahbazi wrote: > > > Fix the checkpath.pl issue on fb_watterott.c. write_vmem and > > > write_vmem_8bit functions are within non-atomic context and can > > > safely use usleep_range. > > > see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hassan Shahbazi <hassan@ninchat.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c > > > index 76b25df376b8..afcc86a17995 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c > > > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int write_vmem(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len) > > > par->txbuf.buf, 10 + par->info->fix.line_length); > > > if (ret < 0) > > > return ret; > > > - udelay(300); > > > + usleep_range(300, 310); > > > } > > > > > > return 0; > > > @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ static int write_vmem_8bit(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len) > > > par->txbuf.buf, 10 + par->info->var.xres); > > > if (ret < 0) > > > return ret; > > > - udelay(700); > > > + usleep_range(700, 710); > > > > How do you know that these ranges are ok? Are you able to test these > > changes with real hardware? > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > No, I don't have the hardware to test with. I just used the current > value as the minimum and added an epsilon to it for the maximum > param. It's best not to guess about this, sorry, you should have the hardware to test this type of change. thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-11-06 10:01 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-11-01 0:20 [PATCH] staging: fbtft: fb_watterott: fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay Hassan Shahbazi 2020-11-01 6:39 ` Greg KH 2020-11-01 10:32 ` Hassan Shahbazi 2020-11-06 10:01 ` Greg KH
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).