From 00753f3d48c4b6c45c1778c3e37bc9949ed79e77 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dmitry Antipov dmitry.antipov@linaro.org Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:01:42 +0400 Subject: [PATCH] regulator: use usleep_range() instead of mdelay()/udelay()
--- drivers/regulator/core.c | 7 +------ 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c index 938398f..183ded8 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/core.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c @@ -1379,12 +1379,7 @@ static int _regulator_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
trace_regulator_enable_delay(rdev_get_name(rdev));
- if (delay >= 1000) { - mdelay(delay / 1000); - udelay(delay % 1000); - } else if (delay) { - udelay(delay); - } + usleep_range(delay, delay + 1000);
trace_regulator_enable_complete(rdev_get_name(rdev));
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:04:53AM +0400, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
From 00753f3d48c4b6c45c1778c3e37bc9949ed79e77 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dmitry Antipov dmitry.antipov@linaro.org Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:01:42 +0400 Subject: [PATCH] regulator: use usleep_range() instead of mdelay()/udelay()
Follow the instructions in Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
if (delay >= 1000) {mdelay(delay / 1000);udelay(delay % 1000);} else if (delay) {udelay(delay);}
usleep_range(delay, delay + 1000);
These two aren't obviously equivalent in several respects and you haven't provided any explanation for what you're trying to accomplish.
-
Dmitry Antipov -
Mark Brown