linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: udelay

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>