On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:41 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:32:46AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > Apparently, people just convert stupidly large udelay()s > > to mdelay and not be bothered. > > And that's the correct answer. Having udelay(10000) rather than mdelay(10) > is a sign that they weren't paying that much attention when writing the > code.
Not really. Look at the code that brought this up in the first place. On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 08:37 +0530, Sujith Manoharan wrote: > From: Sujith Manoharan <c_man...@qca.qualcomm.com> > > Use mdelay instead of udelay to fix this error: > > ERROR: "__bad_udelay" [drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ath9k_hw.ko] undefined! [] diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c [] > @@ -1316,7 +1316,7 @@ static bool ath9k_hw_set_reset(struct ath_hw *ah, int > type) > if (AR_SREV_9300_20_OR_LATER(ah)) > udelay(50); > else if (AR_SREV_9100(ah)) > - udelay(10000); > + mdelay(10); > else > udelay(100); > > > > if (AR_SREV_9300_20_OR_LATER(ah)) > > udelay(50); > > else if (AR_SREV_9100(ah)) > > - udelay(10000); > > + mdelay(10); > > else > > udelay(100); One chip needs a larger delay than the others. It's not so much not paying attention as not knowing ARM is broken for large udelay(). _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
