> Then I'll put udelay() and a timeout counter for it. If udelay() was
> in the busy loop, cpu_relax() is still recommended?
The udelay should deal with it for you.
> Here is a patch on top of the previous one. If this was OK I'll fold
> it into one patch.
Looks good to me
> + while ((sio_in(up, TXX9_SIFCR) & TXX9_SIFCR_SWRST) && --tmout)
> + udelay(1);
> /* TX Int by FIFO Empty, RX Int by Receiving 1 char. */
> sio_set(up, TXX9_SIFCR,
> TXX9_SIFCR_TDIL_MAX | TXX9_SIFCR_RDIL_1);
--
--
Sick of rip off UK rail fares ? Learn how to get far cheaper fares
http://zeniv.linux.org.uk/~alan/GTR/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
