Qi didn't work with my uSD, workaround found

[Michael Buesch]

On Saturday 13 December 2008 19:05:43 Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
> >                 udelay(100000);
> >                 udelay(100000);
> >                 udelay(100000);
> WTF? anything wrong with a single "udelay(600000);" instead of 1+1+1+3? Maybe 
> even 1,000,000 for all the SD crap to come

udelay is not designed for huge values.
I think you should try hard to convert this into an msleep()
Delaying 1 second with udelay is not acceptable.
300msec actually is pretty big for udelay, too.

Why can't we use msleep() here? Any spinlocks held?

-- 
Greetings, Michael.