On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 09:12:13AM -0300, Fabio wrote: > Replaced two lines of calling udelays by usleep_range() functions, adding > more efficiency due to the need of long-lasting delays of more than 10us. > > Signed-off-by: Fabio Bareiro <[email protected]> > --- > 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..edd467c6bf1a 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, 150); > > 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, 150); > }
Are you sure that these changes are safe to make? If this write_reg8_bus8() function is ever called in atomic context, this patch would break the driver. Unless it can be verified with hardware, I wouldn't make this kind of changes. Best regards, Nam
