linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: udelay

To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: udelay
From: Pete Popov <ppopov@mvista.com>
Date: 04 Aug 2003 15:04:27 -0700
Cc: Linux MIPS mailing list <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
In-reply-to: <20030804213812.GA21327@linux-mips.org>
Organization: MontaVista Software
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> <20030804213812.GA21327@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
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


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>