* Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@xxxxxxxxx> [2008-08-25 22:36]: > > There are "udelay(2300)" calls in phy.c and hw.c. How important is > > that exact number? Could those be replaced by mdelay(3) instead? > > > > Of course, looking in include/linux/delay.h, mdelay(3) may still > > translate to __bad_udelay on arm. It would be nice if the ARM guys > > and delay.h could at least agree on the maximum value allowed to be > > passed to udelay... > > > > John > > Sorry for that i just haven't tested 5210 code much (these are older > chips that need more delay). I'll do some tests asap and tweak this > value to be in range. Did you have a chance to do these tests yet? -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- 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
