On Saturday 13 December 2008 19:56:44 Andy Green wrote: > 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.
Whoops. Ignore my comment then :) anyway, IMO raising the retries value is better than raising the delay. This lowers the average time this thing loops. What about udelay(10000) and retries * 600? -- Greetings, Michael.
