Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:38:18 +0200
From:   Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
Cc:     kenechukwu maduechesi <maduechesik@gmail.com>,
        outreachy@lists.linux.dev, shreeya.patel23498@gmail.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.
Message-ID: <ZS+1mpOYTKRaABR1@ashyti-mobl2.lan>
References: <20231018004300.GA3189@ubuntu>
 <7bc719c4-459f-3d8-7ed-b1e1adf158@inria.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7bc719c4-459f-3d8-7ed-b1e1adf158@inria.fr>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Julia,

> > Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling.
> >
> > Reported by checkpatch:
> >
> > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay
> 
> This message is typically not a good candidate for outreachy patches,
> because you need access to the device to be sure that any change is
> correct.

I actually don't really mind this patch... I would exchange these
udelay() with almost anything, they look to me placed a bit
random anyway (without going too much in detail).

But in general, for this project, I think you are right and it's
a good idea not to blindly change delay and sleeping functions
without really knowing what you are doing.

Andi