Re: [PATCH] drivers: staging: fbtft: Replace usage of udelay

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 01:37:46AM +0000, Haris M. Bhatti wrote:
> checkpatch highlighted that use of udelay should be replaced by
> usleep_range.
> ---
>  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 398bdbf53c9a..75cf3bb18414 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c
> @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ static void write_reg8_bus8(struct fbtft_par *par, int len, ...)
>  	}
>  	len--;
>  
> -	udelay(100);
> +	usleep_range(100, 101);
>  
>  	if (len) {
>  		buf = (u8 *)par->buf;
> @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ 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, 101);
>  }
>  
>  static int write_vmem16_bus8(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len)
> -- 
> 2.38.1
> 
> 

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- Your patch does not have a Signed-off-by: line.  Please read the
  kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches and resend it after
  adding that line.  Note, the line needs to be in the body of the
  email, before the patch, not at the bottom of the patch or in the
  email signature.

- You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
  possibly, any description at all, in the email body.  Please read the
  section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
  properly describe the change.

- You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
  and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about.  Please read
  the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
  look like.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot