Re: [PATCH] Replace udelay() with usleep_range() in PLL initialization code. According to Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst, usleep_range() is preferred for delays "10us - 20ms"

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 3:09 AM Alexandru Costin <spxxky....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Resolves checkpatch warnings:
>   WARNING: usleep_range is preferred over udelay

First of all, fix checkpatch to point to a newer API, i.e. fsleep().

...

> @@ -210,7 +210,8 @@ static void write_reg8_bus8(struct fbtft_par *par, int 
> len, ...)

> -       udelay(100);
> +       usleep_range(100, 120);

> @@ -231,7 +232,7 @@ static void write_reg8_bus8(struct fbtft_par *par, int 
> len, ...)

> -       udelay(100);
> +       usleep_range(100, 120);

This is an IO function for the hardware in question. Have you tested
it? How do you know that this is a non-atomic context?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko