On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 05:48:47PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > It is a bug in the driver.
> >
> > Please check again the code and point me the invalid
> > udelay(). You will realise that there is no delay in the driver that
> > is longer than 100ms.
>
> The udelay limit is set a lot lower than 100mS. It has to be somewhat lower
> otherwise you have to do two levels of loops which will throw small udelay
> timings a fair whack.
Sorry, I mixed up my units. All the delays are lower than 100us.
> > The bug is that udelay() can't be passed a variable but only a
> > constant. Therefore bug in udelay().
>
> Sounds like a compiler bug.
>
> #define udelay(n) (__builtin_constant_p(n) ? \
> ((n) > 20000 ? __bad_udelay() : __const_udelay((n) * 0x10c6ul)) : \
> __udelay(n))
>
> non constants are covered.
Therefore, compiler bug. Ouch !
Jean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
