From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271103AbTHLUmz (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:42:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271105AbTHLUmy (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:42:54 -0400 Received: from twilight.ucw.cz ([81.30.235.3]:41876 "EHLO twilight.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271103AbTHLUmy (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:42:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:42:46 +0200 From: Vojtech Pavlik To: Andries Brouwer Cc: Pete Zaitcev , Chris Heath , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: i8042 problem Message-ID: <20030812204246.GA23011@ucw.cz> References: <20030726093619.GA973@win.tue.nl> <20030726212513.A0BD.CHRIS@heathens.co.nz> <20030727020621.A11637@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20030727104726.GA1313@win.tue.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030727104726.GA1313@win.tue.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 12:47:26PM +0200, Andries Brouwer wrote: > So, apart from other things you might try, it seems to me that > changing the timeout in atkbd_sendbyte from the 10000 that is > there to the 100000 that the comment implies, should help. > > Andries > > > - int timeout = 10000; /* 100 msec */ > + int timeout = 100000; /* 100 msec */ Note that we do udelay(10) in the loop, so with this change you're waiting for a whole second. The timeout might need to be made bigger, but not that much. -- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs, SuSE CR