From: John B. Wyatt IV <hidden> Date: 2020-03-29 09:22:40
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Are the docs out of date, or, is this a checkpatch issue?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 <redacted>
---
drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr> Date: 2020-03-29 09:28:36
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, John B. Wyatt IV wrote:
quoted hunk
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Are the docs out of date, or, is this a checkpatch issue?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 <redacted>
---
drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
usleep_range should have a range, eg usleep_range(50, 100);. But it is
hard to know a priori what the range should be. So it is probably better
to leave the code alone.
julia
gpiod_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 1);
mdelay(120);
}
--
2.25.1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20200329092204.770405-1-jbwyatt4%40gmail.com.
From: John Wyatt <hidden> Date: 2020-03-29 09:39:19
On Sun, 2020-03-29 at 11:28 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, John B. Wyatt IV wrote:
quoted
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Are the docs out of date, or, is this a checkpatch issue?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 <redacted>
---
drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
usleep_range should have a range, eg usleep_range(50, 100);. But it
is
hard to know a priori what the range should be. So it is probably
better
to leave the code alone.
Understood.
With the question I wrote in the commit message:
"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?"
Is usleep_range too expensive for this operation?
Why does checkpatch favor usleep_range while the docs favor udelay?
julia
quoted
gpiod_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 1);
mdelay(120);
}
--
2.25.1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20200329092204.770405-1-jbwyatt4%40gmail.com
.
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr> Date: 2020-03-29 09:47:37
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, John Wyatt wrote:
On Sun, 2020-03-29 at 11:28 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
quoted
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, John B. Wyatt IV wrote:
quoted
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 <redacted>
---
drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
usleep_range should have a range, eg usleep_range(50, 100);. But it
is
hard to know a priori what the range should be. So it is probably
better
to leave the code alone.
Understood.
With the question I wrote in the commit message:
"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?"
Is usleep_range too expensive for this operation?
Why does checkpatch favor usleep_range while the docs favor udelay?
I don't know the answer in detail, but it is quite possible that
checkpatch doesn't pay any attention to the delay argument. Checkpatch is
a perl script that highlights things that may be of concern. It is not a
precise static analsis tool.
As a matter of form, all of your Please review comments should have been
put below the ---. Currently, if someone had wanted to apply the patch,
you would make them do extra work to remove this information.
julia
quoted
julia
quoted
gpiod_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 1);
mdelay(120);
}
--
2.25.1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20200329092204.770405-1-jbwyatt4%40gmail.com
.