Return-path: Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.228]:27488 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751689AbYIKOUR (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:20:17 -0400 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 69so217163wri.5 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <40f31dec0809110720x38902672pc60426a7178de5e3@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080911_162022_041775_07D7D979) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:20:15 +0300 From: "Nick Kossifidis" To: "Martin Michlmayr" Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] ath5k: bad udelay call, build failure on ARM Cc: "John W. Linville" , ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20080910093638.GA16874@deprecation.cyrius.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 References: <20080825115715.GA13506@deprecation.cyrius.com> <20080825190811.GC17297@tuxdriver.com> <40f31dec0808251236qad2118dv2b781b147d366415@mail.gmail.com> <20080910093638.GA16874@deprecation.cyrius.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2008/9/10 Martin Michlmayr : > * Nick Kossifidis [2008-08-25 22:36]: >> > 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. It would be nice if the ARM guys >> > and delay.h could at least agree on the maximum value allowed to be >> > passed to udelay... >> > >> > John >> >> Sorry for that i just haven't tested 5210 code much (these are older >> chips that need more delay). I'll do some tests asap and tweak this >> value to be in range. > > Did you have a chance to do these tests yet? Next week i hope, sorry for the delay ;-( -- GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-) Nick