Hi Greg,

On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 16:11:17 +0200
Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 01:58:51PM +0530, Ajay Singh wrote:

quoted

Hi Greg,

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 09:34:15 +0200
Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:
  

quoted

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:36:56AM +0530, Ajay Singh wrote:  

quoted

Cleanup patch to avoid the below checkpatch reported issue.

"usleep_range is preferred over udelay; see
Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt".

Signed-off-by: Ajay Singh <ajay.kathat@microchip.com>
---
 drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c

b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c index 6bac3f7..655952a
100644 --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c

+++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c

@@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ void chip_wakeup(struct wilc *wilc)
 		} while (wilc_get_chipid(wilc, true) == 0);
 	} else if ((wilc->io_type & 0x1) == HIF_SDIO) {
 		wilc->hif_func->hif_write_reg(wilc, 0xfa, 1);
-		udelay(200);
+		usleep_range(200, 201);    

Hah, that's funny.

No, do it right, don't try to game checkpatch here.  

The delay of 200us was added to have a short wait between HW
register write and read operation. The short delay of 200us was
enough for this but the duration range is not available. So to
replace udelay() of 200us with usleep_range(), I have used used
range from 200, 201.  

What do you mean that "the duration range is not available"?  You know
what is allowed here, please provide that range.  You do know the
reason for this suggestion from checkpatch, right?  By doing what you
did here, you are totally subverting the real goal here, you are not
solving anything.

Actually, we need a delay of 200us but there is no upper limit for it.
usleep_range() also expects upper limit, so added '1us' to the
lower limit (200us) to use for upper limit value.

I will rework on this and resubmit the patch.

Thank you.

Regards,
Ajay