Re: Too much error in __const_udelay() ?

[Dominik Brodowski]

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 12:12:48PM -0700, john stultz wrote:
> I agree w/ Pavel that rounding up sounds better, but I can't get the
> math to work, so this may be the best solution. 

It's some strange sort of rounding, see my patch "3"...

> I'm also spinning up a patch w/ these changes to test, let me know how
> your testing went and I'll do the same.

Testing went fine -- even for the PMTMR-based delay case [*].

	Dominik

[*] though I noticed the cpufreq notifier breaks then: it updates
loops_per_jiffy without evaluating if it's indeed TSC- or even
frequency-based. It'll fail on cyclone, too, I think...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/