On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 03:17:49PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 03:59:40PM -0400, Michael Wu wrote:
>
> > +static inline void eeprom_93cx6_pulse_high(struct eeprom_93cx6 *eeprom)
> > +{
> > + eeprom->reg_data_clock = 1;
> > + eeprom->register_write(eeprom);
> > + udelay(1);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void eeprom_93cx6_pulse_low(struct eeprom_93cx6 *eeprom)
> > +{
> > + eeprom->reg_data_clock = 0;
> > + eeprom->register_write(eeprom);
> > + udelay(1);
> > +}
>
> I'm with Jeff, these udelay's should go. If they belong anywhere, it
> would be in the write routines provided by the caller. For example, the
> routines provided by rtl8187 already have a delay in them. Other
> hardware might actually have a hardware timer to implement delays (hey,
> it's possible). Either way, this delay is superfluous.
I don't claim the delays were superfluous, I was just wondering if they
were papering over write-posting bugs.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
