Return-path: Received: from sorrow.cyrius.com ([65.19.161.204]:2095 "EHLO sorrow.cyrius.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750939AbYHZFF3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 01:05:29 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:05:16 +0300 From: Martin Michlmayr To: "John W. Linville" Cc: ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ath5k: bad udelay call, build failure on ARM Message-ID: <20080826050516.GB5474@deprecation.cyrius.com> (sfid-20080826_070548_842435_F4FE163F) References: <20080825115715.GA13506@deprecation.cyrius.com> <20080825190811.GC17297@tuxdriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20080825190811.GC17297@tuxdriver.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * John W. Linville [2008-08-25 15:08]: > There are "udelay(2300)" calls in phy.c and hw.c. How important is > that exact number? Could those be replaced by mdelay(3) instead? > > Of course, looking in include/linux/delay.h, mdelay(3) may still > translate to __bad_udelay on arm. mdelay(3) compiles on ARM, so replacing the udelay(2300) with mdelay(3) might be an option. (I don't have the hardware to test though.) -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/