On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:39 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > 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. [] > > 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. :) I'd read it already. I didn't and don't disagree. I still think adding a #warning on large static udelay()s would be sensible. Maybe adding another option like #define UDELAY_TOO_BIG_I_KNOW_ALREADY_DONT_BOTHER_ME guard to avoid seeing the #warning when there's no other option. -- 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
