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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180727092111.7218-1-baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
References: <20180727092111.7218-1-baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jul 2018 13:34:48 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdMQ2Cx+0cH8PuM8t8i2NgphxEqU4g86y5Hgwi1_CQ9zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: fbtft: Replace mdelay() with msleep() and usleep_range()
To:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
Cc:     Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> wrote:
> reset() and init_display() are never called in atomic context.
> They call mdelay() to busily wait, which is not necessary.
> mdelay() can be replaced with msleep().

>         gpio_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 0);
>         udelay(20);
>         gpio_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 1);
> -       mdelay(120);
> +       msleep(120);

I didn't look to the rest, but this one will be inconsistent after your patch.

The question here is why udelay() is needed, while mdelay() changed?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko