From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Poll-based IDE driver Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:26:31 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20031008142631.B2345@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20030917144120.A11425@in.ibm.com> <1063806900.12279.47.camel@dhcp23.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20031008151357.A31976@in.ibm.com> <20031008115051.GD705@redhat.com> <20031008174458.A32517@in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031008174458.A32517@in.ibm.com>; from vatsa@in.ibm.com on Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 05:44:58PM +0530 To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri Cc: Dave Jones , Alan Cox , lkcd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 05:44:58PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > I do realize that the above code does not provide accurate > delay and may not work on all platforms. In that direction > I was considering using the loops_per_jiffy variable > which may provide more accurate/platform-independent delay (?) .. loops_per_jiffy is meaningless when applied to anything other than the udelay function. It bears no resemblence in any way to the number of loops around a for loop. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/ Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/ 2.6 Serial core