I wrote: > The 1.6s despite having a 2s mdelay in the group of things that > contribute to the total time need an explanation. My hypothesis > is that the calibration of the delay loop isn't correct, but I > have yet to verify this.
I checked: the calibration is good, both for mdelay and msleep. So I don't know how it did that trick. I blame experimenter clumsiness ;-) - Werner
