On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:04:54AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:41 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:32:46AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > Apparently, people just convert stupidly large udelay()s > > > to mdelay and not be bothered. > > > > And that's the correct answer. Having udelay(10000) rather than mdelay(10) > > is a sign that they weren't paying that much attention when writing the > > code. > > Not really. > > Look at the code that brought this up in the first place. > > On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 08:37 +0530, Sujith Manoharan wrote: > > From: Sujith Manoharan <c_manoha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Use mdelay instead of udelay to fix this error: > > > > ERROR: "__bad_udelay" [drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ath9k_hw.ko] undefined! > [] > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c > [] > > @@ -1316,7 +1316,7 @@ static bool ath9k_hw_set_reset(struct ath_hw *ah, int type) > > if (AR_SREV_9300_20_OR_LATER(ah)) > > udelay(50); > > else if (AR_SREV_9100(ah)) > > - udelay(10000); > > + mdelay(10); > > else > > udelay(100); > > > > > > > if (AR_SREV_9300_20_OR_LATER(ah)) > > > udelay(50); > > > else if (AR_SREV_9100(ah)) > > > - udelay(10000); > > > + mdelay(10); > > > else > > > udelay(100); > > One chip needs a larger delay than the others. > > It's not so much not paying attention as not > knowing ARM is broken for large udelay(). And now read my suggestion about how to avoid the "not knowing" problem. :) -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: 5.8Mbps down 500kbps up. Estimation in database were 13.1 to 19Mbit for a good line, about 7.5+ for a bad. Estimate before purchase was "up to 13.2Mbit". -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
