[PATCH] staging: fbtft: fb_ra8875: replace udelay with usleep_range

From: Tomasz Unger <redacted>

Signed-off-by: Tomasz Unger <redacted>
---
 drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c
index 0ab1de6647d0..ec4ce534e409 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c

@@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ static void write_reg8_bus8(struct fbtft_par *par, int len, ...)
 	}
 	len--;
 
-	udelay(100);
+	usleep_range(100, 110);
 
 	if (len) {
 		buf = (u8 *)par->buf;

@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ static void write_reg8_bus8(struct fbtft_par *par, int len, ...)
 
 	/* restore user spi-speed */
 	par->fbtftops.write = fbtft_write_spi;
-	udelay(100);
+	usleep_range(100, 110);
 }
 
 static int write_vmem16_bus8(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len)

-- 
2.53.0

On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 06:47:37PM +0100, tomasz.unger@yahoo.pl wrote:

From: Tomasz Unger <redacted>

We do not accept changes without explanations.

Also where did you get this idea to convert udelay() to usleep_range()?
The API (in case it's okay to use) should be fsleep() nowadays.

(Note as well that we refer to the functions as 'func()' in the text.)

And last, but not least: have you checked carefully that this is even
possible change? This is quite a change in the behaviour and needs very
good justification and testing.

TL;DR: if any tool suggested this change to you, go and fix that tool
to stop spreading misleading ARs!

P.S.
NAK to all your three patches. Also check https://lore.kernel.org ML
archives on the similar changes in the past, they were all NAKed
(rejected).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko