Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] bcma: Replace mdelay with usleep_range in bcma_pmu_resources_init | From | Jia-Ju Bai <> | Date | Sat, 27 Jan 2018 00:33:49 +0800 |
| |
On 2018/1/27 0:26, Larry Finger wrote: > On 01/26/2018 03:13 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote: >> After checking all possible call chains to bcma_pmu_resources_init() >> here, >> my tool finds that this function is never called in atomic context, >> namely never in an interrupt handler or holding a spinlock. >> Thus mdelay can be replaced with usleep_range to avoid busy wait. >> >> This is found by a static analysis tool named DCNS written by myself. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/bcma/driver_chipcommon_pmu.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/bcma/driver_chipcommon_pmu.c >> b/drivers/bcma/driver_chipcommon_pmu.c >> index f1eb4d3..478948c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/bcma/driver_chipcommon_pmu.c >> +++ b/drivers/bcma/driver_chipcommon_pmu.c >> @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ static void bcma_pmu_resources_init(struct >> bcma_drv_cc *cc) >> * Add some delay; allow resources to come up and settle. >> * Delay is required for SoC (early init). >> */ >> - mdelay(2); >> + usleep_range(1500, 2000); > > I have no idea how critical this delay might be, but it would be safer > to never make the sleep be shorter than the original delay. Using > (2000, 2500) would be a better choice of arguments for usleep_range().
Okay, I have used usleep_range(2000, 2500) and sent patch v2.
Thanks, Jia-Ju Bai
| |