Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcma: Replace mdelay with usleep_range in
 bcma_pmu_resources_init
To:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>, zajec5@gmail.com,
        hauke@hauke-m.de
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1516958011-303-1-git-send-email-baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
From:   Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>
Message-ID: <b0ae2efe-9b90-0e5f-d53a-d045e76b213c@lwfinger.net>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:26:29 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1516958011-303-1-git-send-email-baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 01/26/2018 03:13 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> After checking all possible call chains to bcma_pmu_resources_init() here,
> my tool finds that this function is never called in atomic context,
> namely never in an interrupt handler or holding a spinlock.
> Thus mdelay can be replaced with usleep_range to avoid busy wait.
> 
> This is found by a static analysis tool named DCNS written by myself.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
> ---
>   drivers/bcma/driver_chipcommon_pmu.c |    2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/bcma/driver_chipcommon_pmu.c b/drivers/bcma/driver_chipcommon_pmu.c
> index f1eb4d3..478948c 100644
> --- a/drivers/bcma/driver_chipcommon_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/bcma/driver_chipcommon_pmu.c
> @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ static void bcma_pmu_resources_init(struct bcma_drv_cc *cc)
>   	 * Add some delay; allow resources to come up and settle.
>   	 * Delay is required for SoC (early init).
>   	 */
> -	mdelay(2);
> +	usleep_range(1500, 2000);

I have no idea how critical this delay might be, but it would be safer to never 
make the sleep be shorter than the original delay. Using (2000, 2500) would be a 
better choice of arguments for usleep_range().

NACK

Larry