Re: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 1/3] ath9k: Fix build error on ARM

On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:41 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

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:

quoted

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

@@ -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().