On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 21:21 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 10:20 -0700, Brad Boyer wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:44:44PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > I don't see a reason for either of those mdelay()s, is there any? Works
> > > fine for me without them...
> >
> >
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:44:44PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> I don't see a reason for either of those mdelay()s, is there any? Works
> fine for me without them...
Which hardware revisions did you test? I suspect the mdelay calls were
added to work around timing issues in one of the older PMU c
On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 10:20 -0700, Brad Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:44:44PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > I don't see a reason for either of those mdelay()s, is there any? Works
> > fine for me without them...
>
> Which hardware revisions did you test? I suspect the mdelay calls w
I don't see a reason for either of those mdelay()s, is there any? Works
fine for me without them...
johannes
---
drivers/macintosh/via-pmu.c | 20 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
--- everything.orig/drivers/macintosh/via-pmu.c 2008-04-03 17:27:29.0