From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: joe@perches.com (Joe Perches) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 04:32:46 -0800 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 1/3] ath9k: Fix build error on ARM In-Reply-To: <20140205115035.GO26684@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1391483274-20331-1-git-send-email-sujith@msujith.org> <1391483274-20331-2-git-send-email-sujith@msujith.org> <1391484878.2538.11.camel@joe-AO722> <21232.24855.201543.400943@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1391531796.2538.21.camel@joe-AO722> <20140205115035.GO26684@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <1391603566.2538.63.camel@joe-AO722> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 11:50 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:36:36AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 08:03 +0100, Holger Schurig wrote: > > > Joe, look in linux/arch/arm/include/asm/delay.h. The macro udelay > > > cannot handle large values because of lost-of-precision. > > > > > > IMHO udelay on ARM is broken, because it also cannot work with fast > > > ARM processors (where bogomips >= 3355, which is in sight now). It's > > > just not broken enought that someone did something against it ... so > > > the current kludge is good enought. > > > > Maybe something like this would be better? > > No, the point of __bad_udelay() is that people doing stupidly large > udelay()s result in build errors, Apparently, people just convert stupidly large udelay()s to mdelay and not be bothered. > rather than having to run the kernel > and trip over a non-existent debugging message beacuse they haven't > built the kernel with DEBUG defined. > > NAK. Perhaps there should be some runtime udelay > maximum supported check.