On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 11:18:57AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> You're saying that for some devices, it's not "conservative" to use a
> larger delay, but instead a larger delay actually breaks the driver?
Hmmm, the message you're replying to seems to have just emerged from a
black hole... I sent it to vger three months ago.
I'm not sure what the issues were now... I ran into it quite a while
ago, and I didn't have access to an affected laptop at the time. I
think one of the issues was that a system could start out in the
"slow" mode and later clock up, which would shorten all the udelay's.
There was a timed loop in the 3c589 driver for reading the EEPROM,
that seemed to fail if the clock was sufficiently faster OR slower
than it was supposed to be.
-- Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:26 EST