Re: [PATCH 01/11] staging: fbtft: Changes udelay(n) to usleep_range(n, n + 1). - Style

[Dan Carpenter]

We need a commit message here.

On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 01:04:56AM -0300, Leonardo Brás wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Brás <leobras.c@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c |  2 +-
>  drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ra8875.c      |  4 ++--
>  drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_tinylcd.c     |  2 +-
>  drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_upd161704.c   | 19 +++++++++----------
>  drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_watterott.c   |  4 ++--
>  5 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c
> index f6f30f5bf15a..c936950ce56d 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c
> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static void reset(struct fbtft_par *par)
>  	dev_dbg(par->info->device, "%s()\n", __func__);
>  
>  	gpio_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 0);
> -	udelay(20);
> +	usleep_range(20, 21);

Is this really the right range?  It feels tight.

>  	gpio_set_value(par->gpio.reset, 1);
>  	mdelay(120);

regards,
dan carpenter