Re: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 1/3] ath9k: Fix build error on ARM
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Date: 2014-02-05 13:04:54
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel
Subsystem:
atheros ath generic utilities, qualcomm atheros ath9k wireless driver, the rest · Maintainers:
Jeff Johnson, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen, Linus Torvalds
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:41 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:32:46AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:quoted
Apparently, people just convert stupidly large udelay()s to mdelay and not be bothered.And that's the correct answer. Having udelay(10000) rather than mdelay(10) is a sign that they weren't paying that much attention when writing the code.
Not really. Look at the code that brought this up in the first place. On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 08:37 +0530, Sujith Manoharan wrote:
From: Sujith Manoharan <redacted> Use mdelay instead of udelay to fix this error: ERROR: "__bad_udelay" [drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ath9k_hw.ko] undefined!
[]
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c[]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -1316,7 +1316,7 @@ static bool ath9k_hw_set_reset(struct ath_hw *ah, int type) if (AR_SREV_9300_20_OR_LATER(ah)) udelay(50); else if (AR_SREV_9100(ah)) - udelay(10000); + mdelay(10); else udelay(100);quoted
if (AR_SREV_9300_20_OR_LATER(ah)) udelay(50); else if (AR_SREV_9100(ah)) - udelay(10000); + mdelay(10); else udelay(100);
One chip needs a larger delay than the others. It's not so much not paying attention as not knowing ARM is broken for large udelay().