Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261302AbVCEWnW (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Mar 2005 17:43:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261291AbVCEWmG (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Mar 2005 17:42:06 -0500 Received: from coderock.org ([193.77.147.115]:28581 "EHLO trashy.coderock.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261297AbVCEWle (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Mar 2005 17:41:34 -0500 Subject: [patch 4/4] arm/cpu-sa1110: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() To: rmk@arm.linux.org.uk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, domen@coderock.org, nacc@us.ibm.com From: domen@coderock.org Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 23:41:24 +0100 Message-Id: <20050305224124.C5CC41EE1E@trashy.coderock.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1197 Lines: 34 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 --- kj-domen/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1110.c | 3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff -puN arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1110.c~msleep-arch_arm_mach-sa1100_cpu-sa1110 arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1110.c --- kj/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1110.c~msleep-arch_arm_mach-sa1100_cpu-sa1110 2005-03-05 16:10:43.000000000 +0100 +++ kj-domen/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1110.c 2005-03-05 16:10:43.000000000 +0100 @@ -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); } _ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/