| To: | Pete Popov <ppopov@mvista.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: udelay |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:38:12 +0200 |
| Cc: | Linux MIPS mailing list <linux-mips@linux-mips.org> |
| In-reply-to: | <1060018159.9217.93.camel@zeus.mvista.com> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <1059788948.9224.62.camel@zeus.mvista.com> <20030804014132.GA4419@linux-mips.org> <1060018159.9217.93.camel@zeus.mvista.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
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 ... Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: udelay, Pete Popov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [patch] Mips64 RM{7,9}000 support, Louis Hamilton |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: udelay, Pete Popov |
| Next by Thread: | Re: udelay, Pete Popov |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |