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 srrmvlt@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