On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:18:44 +0200
Andreas Mohr <andi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:11:15PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > + if (good != 10) {
> > + printk(KERN_INFO "PM-Timer had no reasonable result:"
> > + " 0x%#llx - aborting.\n", value1);
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > }
> > - printk(KERN_INFO "PM-Timer had no reasonable result:"
> > - " 0x%#llx - aborting.\n", value1);
> > - return -ENODEV;
>
> Technically spoken this log message could now be considered partially
> outdated... (we're doing 10 evaluations after all, not one with a
> precise end result).
>
>
> Seeing a define for those several open-coded 10 loops values would be nice.
>
Also it's a bit dodgy printing a cycle_t with %llx. We don't _know_
that cycle_t was implemented with `long long' - if this was always
true, we wouldn't (or shouldn't) have a cycle_t at all.
But it seems that it happens to work for all architectures which
implement acpi.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
