Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 03:16:51 +0000 (UTC) From: Warner Losh <imp@FreeBSD.org> To: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: svn commit: r223219 - head/sys/dev/pccbb Message-ID: <201106180316.p5I3Gp6o019802@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Author: imp Date: Sat Jun 18 03:16:51 2011 New Revision: 223219 URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/223219 Log: More expeirmentation suggests that 10ms isn't as reliable as previously thought, but 100ms seems to be. Likely there's a good middle ground, but for now be conservative. Modified: head/sys/dev/pccbb/pccbb.c Modified: head/sys/dev/pccbb/pccbb.c ============================================================================== --- head/sys/dev/pccbb/pccbb.c Sat Jun 18 02:25:08 2011 (r223218) +++ head/sys/dev/pccbb/pccbb.c Sat Jun 18 03:16:51 2011 (r223219) @@ -811,14 +811,14 @@ cbb_power(device_t brdev, int volts) mtx_unlock(&sc->mtx); /* - * Relax for 10ms. Some bridges appear to assert this signal + * Relax for 100ms. Some bridges appear to assert this signal * right away, but before the card has stabilized. Other * cards need need more time to cope up reliabily. * Experiments with troublesome setups show this to be a * "cheap" way to enhance reliabilty. We need not do this for * "off" since we don't touch the card after we turn it off. */ - pause("cbbPwr", min(hz / 100, 1)); + pause("cbbPwr", min(hz / 10, 1)); /* * The TOPIC95B requires a little bit extra time to get its
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201106180316.p5I3Gp6o019802>