On Saturday 13 December 2008 19:05:43 Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > > udelay(100000); > > udelay(100000); > > udelay(100000); > WTF? anything wrong with a single "udelay(600000);" instead of 1+1+1+3? Maybe > even 1,000,000 for all the SD crap to come
udelay is not designed for huge values. I think you should try hard to convert this into an msleep() Delaying 1 second with udelay is not acceptable. 300msec actually is pretty big for udelay, too. Why can't we use msleep() here? Any spinlocks held? -- Greetings, Michael.
