Re: [PATCH] Poll-based IDE driver
From: Dave Jones <hidden>
Date: 2003-10-08 11:51:35
Also in:
linux-ide
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2003-10-08 · Re: [PATCH] Poll-based IDE driver · Jamie Lokier <hidden>
- 2003-10-08 · Re: [PATCH] Poll-based IDE driver · Alan Cox <hidden>
- 2003-10-08 · Re: [PATCH] Poll-based IDE driver · Russell King <hidden>
- 2003-10-08 · Re: [PATCH] Poll-based IDE driver · Dave Jones <hidden>
- 2003-10-08 · Re: [PATCH] Poll-based IDE driver · Srivatsa Vaddagiri <hidden>
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