From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262277AbVFTWM1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:12:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262142AbVFTWLh (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:11:37 -0400 Received: from coderock.org ([193.77.147.115]:59799 "EHLO trashy.coderock.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261699AbVFTVuE (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:50:04 -0400 Message-Id: <20050620214926.542498000@nd47.coderock.org> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:49:27 +0200 From: domen@coderock.org To: rmk@arm.linux.org.uk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nishanth Aravamudan , domen@coderock.org Subject: [patch 4/4] arm/cpu-sa1110: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() Content-Disposition: inline; filename=msleep-arch_arm_mach-sa1100_cpu-sa1110.patch Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Nishanth Aravamudan Use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee the task delays as expected. Neither signals nor wait-queue events are important at this point in the code, I believe. Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan Signed-off-by: Domen Puncer --- cpu-sa1110.c | 3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) Index: quilt/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1110.c =================================================================== --- quilt.orig/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1110.c +++ quilt/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1110.c @@ -271,8 +271,7 @@ static int sa1110_target(struct cpufreq_ */ sdram_set_refresh(2); if (!irqs_disabled()) { - set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); - schedule_timeout(20 * HZ / 1000); + msleep(20); } else { mdelay(20); } --