On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 15:20 +0200, Roland Stigge wrote: > >> while ((readl(...))&& timeout--> 0) > >> cpu_relax(); > > As I understand loops_per_jiffy, this loop will take much longer than > the 100 ms you defined above? Not sure about much, but longer. The idea is that this is about the error path so if we report -EIO with a slight delay - no problem. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
