On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Pavel Roskin [off-list ref] wrote:

+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0x0, 0x0B7); msleep(1);
+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0x1, 0xEE0); msleep(1);
+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0x2, 0x44D); msleep(1);
+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0x3, 0x441); msleep(1);
+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0x4, 0x8C3); msleep(1);
+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0x5, 0xC72); msleep(1);
+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0x6, 0x0E6); msleep(1);
+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0x7, 0x82A); msleep(1);
+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0x8, 0x03F); msleep(1);
+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0x9, 0x335); msleep(1);
+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0xa, 0x9D4); msleep(1);
+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0xb, 0x7BB); msleep(1);
+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0xc, 0x850); msleep(1);
+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0xd, 0xCDF); msleep(1);
+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0xe, 0x02B); msleep(1);
+       rtl8225_write(dev, 0xf, 0x114); msleep(1);

wouldn't it make sense to let rtl8225_write always call msleep(1) ?