On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 08:20:46AM +0800, Eric Miao wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Wolfram Sang <w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The timeout value is in jiffies, so it should be using HZ, not a plain > > number. Assume with HZ=100 '100' means 1s here and adapt accordingly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Paul Shen <paul.shen@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Mike Rapoport <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > Changes since V1: > > > > * Don't assume 100 means 100ms > > > > Thanks for the comments! > > > > Admitted, the first try was a really bad guess. Maybe I got distracted from the > > previous patch for another arch where the value was 10000. > > > > While this may still not be the favoured solution for Eric, I think it is at > > least better than before, so it might be worth applying after all? > > Ack. The clearest fix would involve more code to be updated, which > can be postponed. This fix, at least, makes the time quantity clearer. Thanks. Can you pick it up? Because it is a change to a board-file. Regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
