Tejun Heo wrote:
05_sil24_mdelay-instead-of-udelay.patch
loop 100 times with mdelay(1) instead of 1000 times with
udelay(100) in sil24_reset_controller.
Jeff, is this what you wanted? If not, just ignore this
patch. The following patches will apply without this one.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sata_sil24.c | 10 +++++++---
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Index: work/drivers/scsi/sata_sil24.c
===================================================================
--- work.orig/drivers/scsi/sata_sil24.c 2005-07-30 19:13:40.000000000 +0900
+++ work/drivers/scsi/sata_sil24.c 2005-07-30 19:13:40.000000000 +0900
@@ -445,9 +445,13 @@ static void sil24_reset_controller(struc
writel(PORT_CS_DEV_RST, port + PORT_CTRL_STAT);
readl(port + PORT_CTRL_STAT); /* sync */
- /* Max ~100ms */
- for (cnt = 0; cnt < 1000; cnt++) {
- udelay(100);
+ /*
+ * Max ~100ms.
+ * FIXME: 100ms is an arbitrary value, get spec and use
+ * accurate value.
+ */
+ for (cnt = 0; cnt < 100; cnt++) {
+ mdelay(1);
tmp = readl(port + PORT_CTRL_STAT);
I forget what the discussion resulted in, for this change.
For error handling, we typically want to move to process context (if not
there already), and then use msleep() and friends.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
