McMullan, Jason wrote: > On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 15:26 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: >> Even though it's MIPS that needs it, it should be flagged as a NAND >> patch since that's the code it touches. > > Totally agree. > >> How about this? >> >> if (state == FL_ERASING) >> timeo = CFG_HZ * 2 / 5; >> else >> timeo = CFG_HZ / 50 >> >> If we have CFG_HZ values that are within a factor of 2 of wrapping >> around, the platform should probably do some downward scaling (or we >> should think about 64-bit timestamps)... > > > Much better than my original patch. Should I revert, retry, and resend?
Sure. -Scott ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
