From cf95dbae062665ffe5fa6b18cf4ab1ff1ba89a7e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Warner Losh Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 03:16:51 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] 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. --- sys/dev/pccbb/pccbb.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/sys/dev/pccbb/pccbb.c b/sys/dev/pccbb/pccbb.c index 7382c7c964c..3c60f3722ce 100644 --- a/sys/dev/pccbb/pccbb.c +++ b/sys/dev/pccbb/pccbb.c @@ -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 -- 2.45.2