On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 00:07 +0200, Benoit Papillault wrote: > It follows the logic mentionned by Derek, with only 2 register reads > needed at each additional steps instead of 3 (the minimum number of > register reads is still 3). I would prefer an approach whereas tsf_upper2 or tsf_upper1 is chosen based on whether tsf_lower is more or less than 0x80000000 if (tsf_upper2 - tsf_upper1) is 1. If the difference is not 0 or 1, either the hardware is broken or the kernel was stuck for so long (71 minutes!) that getting the exact tsf should be the least worry. That's when WARN_ON would be appropriate. The problem with overengineered code is that it doesn't break when it's better to break and expose the problem :-) But it's just a suggestion, not a NACK. It's better to have some fix than no fix at all. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin -- 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
