Re: [UPDATE PATCH] net/sb1000: replace nicedelay() with ssleep()

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> @@ -475,7 +467,7 @@ sb1000_reset(const int ioaddr[], const c
>  	udelay(1000);
>  	outb(0x0, port);
>  	inb(port);
> -	nicedelay(60000);
> +	ssleep(1);
>  	outb(0x4, port);
>  	inb(port);
>  	udelay(1000);
> @@ -537,7 +529,7 @@ sb1000_activate(const int ioaddr[], cons
>  	const unsigned char Command0[6] = {0x80, 0x11, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00};
>  	const unsigned char Command1[6] = {0x80, 0x16, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00};
>  
> -	nicedelay(50000);
> +	ssleep(1);
>  	if ((status = card_send_command(ioaddr, name, Command0, st)))
>  		return status;
>  	if ((status = card_send_command(ioaddr, name, Command1, st)))
> @@ -944,7 +936,7 @@ sb1000_open(struct net_device *dev)
>  	/* initialize sb1000 */
>  	if ((status = sb1000_reset(ioaddr, name)))
>  		return status;
> -	nicedelay(200000);
> +	ssleep(1);
>  	if ((status = sb1000_check_CRC(ioaddr, name)))
>  		return status;


Your conversion of nicedelay() -> ssleep() values is imprecise.

The author clearly intended the values to be different, right?

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/