19 May
2008
19 May
'08
10:36 p.m.
McMullan, Jason wrote:
On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 15:26 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Even though it's MIPS that needs it, it should be flagged as a NAND patch since that's the code it touches.
Totally agree.
How about this?
if (state == FL_ERASING) timeo = CFG_HZ * 2 / 5; else timeo = CFG_HZ / 50
If we have CFG_HZ values that are within a factor of 2 of wrapping around, the platform should probably do some downward scaling (or we should think about 64-bit timestamps)...
Much better than my original patch. Should I revert, retry, and resend?
Sure.
-Scott