Fix style issue with usleep_range being reported as preferred over
udelay.
Issue reported by checkpatch.
Please review.
As written in Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst udelay is the
generally preferred API. hrtimers, as noted in the docs, may be too
expensive for this short timer.
Are the docs out of date, or, is this a checkpatch issue?
Signed-off-by: John B. Wyatt IV <jbwya...@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..019c8cce6bab 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, 20);
gpiod_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 1);
mdelay(120);
}
--
2.25.1
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
