On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 09:27 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 04:05 -0400, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > This interrupt scheduled for 233-40ms is what sounds wrong. It should > > > just continue to blaze off the EHCI resume path. > > > > ... after 20ms have passed, not almost 200. > > Ah, right. Sorry, I missed the order of magnitude discrepancy. Are we > just miscalculating the setting of the wakeup interrupt? More debugging > of that calculation might be in order...
Can you comment out the 'if(tbase_get_deferrable(nte->base)) continue;' in __next_timer_interrupt() at about line 678 of kernel/timer.c ? -- dwmw2 _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
