Re: [PATCH 06/14] RFC: usb/host/fotg210: replace msleep by usleep_range

[Alan Stern]

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:01:10PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
> >> > msleep under 20ms can result in sleeping up to 20ms, which may not be
> >> > intended. Replace msleep(5) by usleep_range(5000, 6000).
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> good catch. I'd apply this straight away. Alan ?
> >
> > It really doesn't matter.  As long as the delay is at least 5 ms, it
> > can be arbitrarily long.  This won't hurt, and if it prevents automated
> > tools from complaining then it's worthwhile.
> Then is it a good idea to increase the range to reduce chances of
> creating an interrupt?
> 
> usleep_range(5000, 10000)?

That wold be okay.

> > Peter, a lot of the changes you have been making will also apply to the
> > ehci-hcd driver.  Do you want to update it as well?  One caution: The
> > style used for continuation lines is to add two extra tab stops, not to
> > align things with an open paren on the original line.
> The drivers with more checkpatch errors and warnings are:
> 
> <number of errors> <number of warnings> <path>
> 
> 117 586 drivers/usb/host/fusbh200-hcd.c
> 38 124 drivers/usb/host/ohci-q.c
> 38 122 drivers/usb/host/ehci-dbg.c
> 37 118 drivers/usb/host/ohci-dbg.c
> 36 129 drivers/usb/host/ehci-sched.c
> 24 136 drivers/usb/host/ohci-hcd.c
> 23 16 drivers/usb/host/sl811-hcd.c
> 20 105 drivers/usb/host/ohci-hub.c
> 18 48 drivers/usb/host/ehci-hub.c
> 
> 17 70 drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c
> 
> 13 4 drivers/usb/host/uhci-debug.c
> 12 93 drivers/usb/host/ehci-q.c
> 9 83 drivers/usb/host/isp116x-hcd.c
> 9 32 drivers/usb/host/fotg210-hcd.c
> 7 29 drivers/usb/host/oxu210hp-hcd.c
> 6 4 drivers/usb/host/sl811_cs.c
> 
> I'll fix ehci-hcd. Do you want patches for the others?

I was speaking of ehci-*.c, because the code in there is extremely
similar to the code you've already been working on.

There's no point in trying to fix _all_ those checkpatch violations.  A 
lot of them are trivial things like an extra space character between a 
function name and the following left paren.

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/