On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 10:20 -0700, Brad Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:44:44PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > I don't see a reason for either of those mdelay()s, is there any? Works > > fine for me without them... > > Which hardware revisions did you test? I suspect the mdelay calls were > added to work around timing issues in one of the older PMU chips. Some > of them are very timing sensitive, and sleep in particular is basically > a pile of steps that got hacked until they worked on older systems.
Mine's a 5,6 powerbook with PMU firmware 0x0c. The mdelay(100) seems fairly large though for a point where we're out of pmu code already, and the other one doesn't really seem too pmu related anyway. In any case, just wanted to float that, don't see a particular need for it. johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
