On Wed, 2016-03-23 at 21:39 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Wed, 2016-03-23 at 13:52 +1100, Russell Currey wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2016-03-23 at 11:38 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2016-22-03 at 00:34:55 UTC, Russell Currey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > + case RTAS_EXTENDED_DELAY_MIN+2: > > > > + mwait = 100; > > > > + break; > > > > + default: > > > > + goto err; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + max_wait -= mwait; > > > > + msleep(mwait); > > > > > > > > Can you use rtas_busy_delay() ? > > Wasn't aware of that, makes life a lot easier. Do you know if the 0.2s > > maximum delay also applies across the board? I definitely want to > > enforce > > it here, but if it is ubiquitous then it should be in rtas_busy_delay. > Not sure sorry, you'll have to read PAPR :) It doesn't mention anything, but I was more concerned about whether it's ever sensible to have that much of a sleep in any case. Probably safe to ignore given it hasn't been a problem up to this point. > > cheers >
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
