On Sat, 15 Sep 2012, Parag Warudkar wrote: > > Yeah, that would fix the code to match what it says and eliminate most > failures. But in my testing sometimes it needed a max wait of 57344 us - > I wrote a separate patch to instrument it by bumping up max wait in > increments of 0x2000 until it no longer failed under my normal workloads. Of course I meant 57 us instead of 57344 which I remembered from my unconverted debug printks. Parag _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
