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 ;)