On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 14:38, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:29:20AM -0700, Pete Popov wrote: > > > > > Looks like the latest udelay in 2.4 is borked. Anyway else notice that > > > > problem? I did a 10 sec test: mdelay works, udelay is broken, at least > > > > for the CPU and toolchain I'm using. > > > > > > That just doesn't make sense. Mdelay is based on udelay so if udelay > > > is broken mdelay should be broken, too. > > > > I think the problem may be occurring when udelay is used with very large > > values, like 10000. I've told the developer that that's not recommended > > and to use mdelays in that case. > > Any bug report for udelay arguments larger than 1000 will probably be > ignored ... I found the 'bug' before I saw your udelay comment ;) Pete
