* [PATCH 1/4] rts5208: Fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay
@ 2019-06-19 15:46 Lukas Schneider
2019-06-19 15:46 ` [PATCH 2/4] " Lukas Schneider
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Lukas Schneider @ 2019-06-19 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kim.jamie.bradley, pakki001, colin.king, devel, linux-kernel
Cc: Lukas Schneider, Jannik Moritz, linux-kernel
This patch fixes the issue reported by checkpatch:
CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay;
see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
It's save to sleep here instead of using busy waiting,
because we are not in an atomic context.
Signed-off-by: Lukas Schneider <lukas.s.schneider@fau.de>
Signed-off-by: Jannik Moritz <jannik.moritz@fau.de>
Cc: <linux-kernel@i4.cs.fau.de>
---
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 1128eec3bd08..264887d8b3e6 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
@@ -3237,7 +3237,7 @@ static int ms_write_multiple_pages(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u16 old_blk,
return STATUS_FAIL;
}
- udelay(30);
+ usleep_range(30, 40);
rtsx_init_cmd(chip);
@@ -4159,7 +4159,7 @@ int mg_set_ICV(struct scsi_cmnd *srb, struct rtsx_chip *chip)
#ifdef MG_SET_ICV_SLOW
for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
- udelay(50);
+ usleep_range(50, 60);
rtsx_init_cmd(chip);
--
2.19.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/4] rts5208: Fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay
2019-06-19 15:46 [PATCH 1/4] rts5208: Fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay Lukas Schneider
@ 2019-06-19 15:46 ` Lukas Schneider
2019-06-19 15:46 ` [PATCH 3/4] " Lukas Schneider
2019-06-19 15:46 ` [PATCH 4/4] rts5208: Fix usleep range " Lukas Schneider
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Lukas Schneider @ 2019-06-19 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kim.jamie.bradley, pakki001, colin.king, devel, linux-kernel
Cc: Lukas Schneider, Jannik Moritz
This patch fixes the issue reported by checkpatch:
CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay;
see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
It's save to sleep here instead of using busy waiting,
because we are not in an atomic context.
Signed-off-by: Lukas Schneider <lukas.s.schneider@fau.de>
Signed-off-by: Jannik Moritz <jannik.moritz@fau.de>
Cc <linux-kernel@i4.cs.fau.de>
---
drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
index 294f381518fa..960e845133c3 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
@@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ int switch_ssc_clock(struct rtsx_chip *chip, int clk)
if (retval < 0)
return STATUS_ERROR;
- udelay(10);
+ usleep_range(10, 20);
retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, CLK_CTL, CLK_LOW_FREQ, 0);
if (retval)
return retval;
@@ -797,7 +797,7 @@ int switch_normal_clock(struct rtsx_chip *chip, int clk)
return retval;
if (sd_vpclk_phase_reset) {
- udelay(200);
+ usleep_range(200, 210);
retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VPCLK0_CTL,
PHASE_NOT_RESET, PHASE_NOT_RESET);
if (retval)
@@ -806,7 +806,7 @@ int switch_normal_clock(struct rtsx_chip *chip, int clk)
PHASE_NOT_RESET, PHASE_NOT_RESET);
if (retval)
return retval;
- udelay(200);
+ usleep_range(200, 210);
}
retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, CLK_CTL, 0xFF, 0);
if (retval)
--
2.19.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/4] rts5208: Fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay
2019-06-19 15:46 [PATCH 1/4] rts5208: Fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay Lukas Schneider
2019-06-19 15:46 ` [PATCH 2/4] " Lukas Schneider
@ 2019-06-19 15:46 ` Lukas Schneider
2019-06-19 15:46 ` [PATCH 4/4] rts5208: Fix usleep range " Lukas Schneider
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Lukas Schneider @ 2019-06-19 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kim.jamie.bradley, pakki001, colin.king, devel, linux-kernel
Cc: Lukas Schneider, Jannik Moritz, linux-kernel
This patch fixes the issue reported by checkpatch:
CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay;
see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
It's save to sleep here instead of using busy waiting,
because we are not in an atomic context.
Signed-off-by: Lukas Schneider <lukas.s.schneider@fau.de>
Signed-off-by: Jannik Moritz <jannik.moritz@fau.de>
Cc: <linux-kernel@i4.cs.fau.de>
---
drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_chip.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_chip.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_chip.c
index 76c35f3c0208..8cddfe542d56 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_chip.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_chip.c
@@ -1803,7 +1803,7 @@ void rtsx_exit_ss(struct rtsx_chip *chip)
if (chip->power_down_in_ss) {
rtsx_force_power_on(chip, SSC_PDCTL | OC_PDCTL);
- udelay(1000);
+ usleep_range(1000, 1010);
}
if (RTSX_TST_DELINK(chip)) {
--
2.19.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 4/4] rts5208: Fix usleep range is preferred over udelay
2019-06-19 15:46 [PATCH 1/4] rts5208: Fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay Lukas Schneider
2019-06-19 15:46 ` [PATCH 2/4] " Lukas Schneider
2019-06-19 15:46 ` [PATCH 3/4] " Lukas Schneider
@ 2019-06-19 15:46 ` Lukas Schneider
2019-06-21 11:04 ` Pavel Machek
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Lukas Schneider @ 2019-06-19 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kim.jamie.bradley, pakki001, colin.king, devel, linux-kernel
Cc: Lukas Schneider, Jannik Moritz, linux-kernel
This patch fixes the issue reported by checkpatch:
CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay;
see Doucmentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
It's save to sleep here instead of using busy waiting,
because we are not in an atomic context.
Signed-off-by: Lukas Schneider <lukas.s.schneider@fau.de>
Signed-off-by: Jannik Moritz <jannik.moritz@fau.de>
Cc: <linux-kernel@i4.cs.fau.de>
---
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 c256a2398651..23a3499096ce 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, 60);
retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF,
PHASE_CHANGE |
PHASE_NOT_RESET |
@@ -877,14 +877,14 @@ static int sd_change_phase(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u8 sample_point, u8 tune_dir)
CHANGE_CLK, CHANGE_CLK);
if (retval)
return retval;
- udelay(50);
+ usleep_range(50, 60);
retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF,
PHASE_NOT_RESET |
sample_point);
if (retval)
return retval;
}
- udelay(100);
+ usleep_range(100, 110);
rtsx_init_cmd(chip);
rtsx_add_cmd(chip, WRITE_REG_CMD, SD_DCMPS_CTL, DCMPS_CHANGE,
@@ -918,7 +918,7 @@ static int sd_change_phase(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u8 sample_point, u8 tune_dir)
return retval;
}
- udelay(50);
+ usleep_range(50, 60);
}
retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_CFG1, SD_ASYNC_FIFO_NOT_RST, 0);
@@ -1416,7 +1416,7 @@ static int sd_wait_data_idle(struct rtsx_chip *chip)
retval = STATUS_SUCCESS;
break;
}
- udelay(100);
+ usleep_range(100, 110);
}
dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_DATA_STATE: 0x%02x\n", val);
--
2.19.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4/4] rts5208: Fix usleep range is preferred over udelay
2019-06-19 15:46 ` [PATCH 4/4] rts5208: Fix usleep range " Lukas Schneider
@ 2019-06-21 11:04 ` Pavel Machek
2019-06-21 13:01 ` Lukas Schneider
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2019-06-21 11:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lukas Schneider
Cc: kim.jamie.bradley, pakki001, colin.king, devel, linux-kernel,
Jannik Moritz, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1996 bytes --]
On Wed 2019-06-19 17:46:48, Lukas Schneider wrote:
> This patch fixes the issue reported by checkpatch:
>
> CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay;
> see Doucmentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
>
> It's save to sleep here instead of using busy waiting,
> because we are not in an atomic context.
Is it good idea? How can the system really sleep for 50 usec?
Pavel
> @@ -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, 60);
> retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF,
> PHASE_CHANGE |
> PHASE_NOT_RESET |
> @@ -877,14 +877,14 @@ static int sd_change_phase(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u8 sample_point, u8 tune_dir)
> CHANGE_CLK, CHANGE_CLK);
> if (retval)
> return retval;
> - udelay(50);
> + usleep_range(50, 60);
> retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF,
> PHASE_NOT_RESET |
> sample_point);
> if (retval)
> return retval;
> }
> - udelay(100);
> + usleep_range(100, 110);
>
> rtsx_init_cmd(chip);
> rtsx_add_cmd(chip, WRITE_REG_CMD, SD_DCMPS_CTL, DCMPS_CHANGE,
> @@ -918,7 +918,7 @@ static int sd_change_phase(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u8 sample_point, u8 tune_dir)
> return retval;
> }
>
> - udelay(50);
> + usleep_range(50, 60);
> }
>
> retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_CFG1, SD_ASYNC_FIFO_NOT_RST, 0);
> @@ -1416,7 +1416,7 @@ static int sd_wait_data_idle(struct rtsx_chip *chip)
> retval = STATUS_SUCCESS;
> break;
> }
> - udelay(100);
> + usleep_range(100, 110);
> }
> dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_DATA_STATE: 0x%02x\n", val);
>
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4/4] rts5208: Fix usleep range is preferred over udelay
2019-06-21 11:04 ` Pavel Machek
@ 2019-06-21 13:01 ` Lukas Schneider
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Lukas Schneider @ 2019-06-21 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pavel Machek
Cc: kim.jamie.bradley, pakki001, colin.king, devel, linux-kernel,
Jannik Moritz, linux-kernel
Am 21.06.2019 um 13:04 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> On Wed 2019-06-19 17:46:48, Lukas Schneider wrote:
>> This patch fixes the issue reported by checkpatch:
>>
>> CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay;
>> see Doucmentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
>>
>> It's save to sleep here instead of using busy waiting,
>> because we are not in an atomic context.
> Is it good idea? How can the system really sleep for 50 usec?
>
> Pavel
According to Doucmentation/timers/timers-howto.txt, usleep_range should
be used for sleep times between 10us and 20ms, so it is the correct
function for 50us.
Lukas
>> @@ -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, 60);
>> retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF,
>> PHASE_CHANGE |
>> PHASE_NOT_RESET |
>> @@ -877,14 +877,14 @@ static int sd_change_phase(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u8 sample_point, u8 tune_dir)
>> CHANGE_CLK, CHANGE_CLK);
>> if (retval)
>> return retval;
>> - udelay(50);
>> + usleep_range(50, 60);
>> retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_VP_CTL, 0xFF,
>> PHASE_NOT_RESET |
>> sample_point);
>> if (retval)
>> return retval;
>> }
>> - udelay(100);
>> + usleep_range(100, 110);
>>
>> rtsx_init_cmd(chip);
>> rtsx_add_cmd(chip, WRITE_REG_CMD, SD_DCMPS_CTL, DCMPS_CHANGE,
>> @@ -918,7 +918,7 @@ static int sd_change_phase(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u8 sample_point, u8 tune_dir)
>> return retval;
>> }
>>
>> - udelay(50);
>> + usleep_range(50, 60);
>> }
>>
>> retval = rtsx_write_register(chip, SD_CFG1, SD_ASYNC_FIFO_NOT_RST, 0);
>> @@ -1416,7 +1416,7 @@ static int sd_wait_data_idle(struct rtsx_chip *chip)
>> retval = STATUS_SUCCESS;
>> break;
>> }
>> - udelay(100);
>> + usleep_range(100, 110);
>> }
>> dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "SD_DATA_STATE: 0x%02x\n", val);
>>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-06-21 13:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-06-19 15:46 [PATCH 1/4] rts5208: Fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay Lukas Schneider
2019-06-19 15:46 ` [PATCH 2/4] " Lukas Schneider
2019-06-19 15:46 ` [PATCH 3/4] " Lukas Schneider
2019-06-19 15:46 ` [PATCH 4/4] rts5208: Fix usleep range " Lukas Schneider
2019-06-21 11:04 ` Pavel Machek
2019-06-21 13:01 ` Lukas Schneider
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).