Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Lukas Schneider <> | Subject | [PATCH 2/4] rts5208: Fix usleep_range is preferred over udelay | Date | Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:46:46 +0200 |
| |
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
| |