Re: os_time_delay() changed?

2016-10-21 Thread Christopher Collins
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:20:00AM -0700, will sanfilippo wrote: > Yes, possibly. We never should have used 500 there. It should be in > terms of OS_TICKS_PER SEC. Some bsps now use 128 ticks per second > > So that is probably it. To add to Will's answer, if you are dealing with large time

Re: os_time_delay() changed?

2016-10-21 Thread will sanfilippo
Yes, possibly. We never should have used 500 there. It should be in terms of OS_TICKS_PER SEC. Some bsps now use 128 ticks per second So that is probably it. > On Oct 21, 2016, at 11:17 AM, David G. Simmons wrote: > > Has there been a change in os_time_delay()?

os_time_delay() changed?

2016-10-21 Thread David G. Simmons
Has there been a change in os_time_delay()? os_time_delay(500) used to be a half-second delay. Now it is a 5-second delay. dg -- David G. Simmons (919) 534-5099 Web • Blog • Linkedin • Twitter