2008/9/10 Martin Michlmayr <tbm@xxxxxxxxxx>: > * 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? Next week i hope, sorry for the delay ;-( -- GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-) Nick -- 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
