On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Dmitry Artamonow <mad_soft@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12:09 Mon 12 Mar , Stephen Warren wrote: >> Thierry pointed out that one of NVIDIA's downstream kernels uses a >> timeout of 300 here, rather than 2000 above. Do you see a specific need >> for this timeout for be 2000 rather than 300? It might be nice to be >> consistent. > No, there's no specific need for it to be 2000 - it may as well be 300. > I just wanted to stay on the safe side, but I think 300 should be still > more than enough time for PLL to lock. > >> >> Olof, I notice you've already applied V1 of this, which has the return >> statement issue. Can you replace it with this, or should Dmitry send an >> incremental patch? > > Yes, V1 breaks more things than it fixes, so it would be nice if > it can be replaced with fixed version (I hope it's not too late yet). > BTW, regarding timeout discussion above - should I resend patch with > adjusted timeout, or can you change it while applying? (of course, > if we settle on incremental patch, I'll roll this change in) Please send an incremental patch which also solves the above question. :) -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
