On 11/12/2011 08:10 PM, Malcolm Priestley wrote:
On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 18:14 +0200, Antti Palosaari wrote:
On 11/12/2011 05:54 PM, Malcolm Priestley wrote:
It is noticed that sometimes the device fails to download parts of the firmware.
Since there is no ack from firmware write a 250u second delay has been added.
Signed-off-by: Malcolm Priestley<tvboxspy@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/media/dvb/dvb-usb/af9015.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-usb/af9015.c b/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-usb/af9015.c
index c6c275b..dc6e4ec 100644
--- a/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-usb/af9015.c
+++ b/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-usb/af9015.c
@@ -698,6 +698,7 @@ static int af9015_download_firmware(struct usb_device *udev,
err("firmware download failed:%d", ret);
goto error;
}
+ udelay(250);
}
/* firmware loaded, request boot */
That sleep is not critical as all, so defining it as udelay() is wrong
in my understanding. Refer Kernel documentation about delays.
So we just go faster and faster, without acknowledgements and due
respect for the hardware?
Typical download time is about 100ms, download on some systems was less
than 50ms and failing.
A 250uS wait brought the time back up to arround 100ms.
I said you should not use udelay() since that sleep is not critical.
udelay() have bad effect in system level. You didn't looked
documentation as I asked, here it is:
Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt . I think usleep_range() is
correct function.
Antti
--
http://palosaari.fi/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
