From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] Poll-based IDE driver Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:50:51 +0100 Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20031008115051.GD705@redhat.com> References: <20030917144120.A11425@in.ibm.com> <1063806900.12279.47.camel@dhcp23.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20031008151357.A31976@in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pix-525-pool.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:6428 "EHLO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261376AbTJHLvd (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2003 07:51:33 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031008151357.A31976@in.ibm.com> List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri Cc: Alan Cox , lkcd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 03:13:57PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > /* Wait for at least N usecs (1 clock per cycle, 10GHz processor = 10000) */ > /* ToDo : replace this routine based on loops_per_jiffy?? */ > static inline void dump_udelay(unsigned int num_usec) > { > volatile unsigned int i; > for (i = 0; i < 10000 * num_usec; i++); > } Why not just use udelay() ? The above code cannot possibly do the right thing on all processors. Dave -- Dave Jones http://www.codemonkey.org.uk