-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Somebody in the thread at some point said: | 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?
It would be good advice, but this is in Qi bootloader, not Linux. There are no interrupts (not even a vector table) and it's all single threaded. For that matter, udelay() timing in there is just approximate. I have plans for delays in Qi that will make it adhere more to wallclock time as a side-effect, but it'll still be basically the same single threaded deal. - -Andy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAklEBWwACgkQOjLpvpq7dMrzXgCfYF4mmFgI0waSkZquKjAz9XVe AwcAnjzxJavWYq0Jd3kWQgzshBB+uj5W =lAxk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
