On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 08:26:05PM -0500, Sreeram Veluthakkal wrote: > This patch fixes the issue: > FILE: drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c:88: > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay; see > Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst > + udelay(20); > > Signed-off-by: Sreeram Veluthakkal <srrm...@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c > b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c > index eeeeec97ad27..2dece71fd3b5 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c > @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static void reset(struct fbtft_par *par) > dev_dbg(par->info->device, "%s()\n", __func__); > > gpiod_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 0); > - udelay(20); > + usleep_range(20, 40);
Is it "safe" to wait 40? This kind of change you can only do if you know this is correct. Have you tested this with hardware? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
