From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rene Herman Subject: Re: [PATCH] ad1848 and cs4231 busy loop replacement Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:19:56 +0200 Message-ID: <46E4637C.9000809@gmail.com> References: <20070909001208.b2e54c13.krzysztof.h1@gmail.com> <46E46109.5040704@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl (smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl [213.51.146.200]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40DDD103950 for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2007 23:26:45 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <46E46109.5040704@gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Krzysztof Helt Cc: Alsa-devel List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On 09/09/2007 11:09 PM, Rene Herman wrote: > Given that the only difference is that I wait less, yours would've > worked as well -- thanks for looking into this! And could you viceversa > test this on AD1848 and perhaps resubmit if you agree? Oh, and I forgot to say (sigh) that I use a mdelay() and not an msleep() in the ad1848 one due to the 1 ms being short enough and didn't keep the snd_printd() because if one, then all please... If you yourself insist on keeping a change like that split off, then doing that as a second patch ontop is best I guess but I suspect Takashi wouldn't mind trivial stuff like that anymore than I would -- we're not rule-driven robots... Rene.