Re: Too much error in __const_udelay() ?

[john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>]

On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 12:12, john stultz wrote:
> 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.

The following patch of your suggestions resolves the USB problem for me.
I'd be interested if anyone else could test this to insure it doesn't
open up any other issues.

thanks
-john

===== arch/i386/lib/delay.c 1.5 vs edited =====
--- 1.5/arch/i386/lib/delay.c	Wed Jul  2 21:21:32 2003
+++ edited/arch/i386/lib/delay.c	Mon Jun  7 12:17:26 2004
@@ -33,13 +33,13 @@
 	int d0;
 	__asm__("mull %0"
 		:"=d" (xloops), "=&a" (d0)
-		:"1" (xloops),"0" (current_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy));
-        __delay(xloops * HZ);
+		:"1" (xloops),"0" (HZ*current_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy));
+        __delay(xloops?xloops:1);
 }
 
 void __udelay(unsigned long usecs)
 {
-	__const_udelay(usecs * 0x000010c6);  /* 2**32 / 1000000 */
+	__const_udelay(usecs * 0x000010c7);  /* 2**32 / 1000000 */
 }
 
 void __ndelay(unsigned long nsecs)
===== include/asm-i386/delay.h 1.2 vs edited =====
--- 1.2/include/asm-i386/delay.h	Tue Feb 18 06:40:31 2003
+++ edited/include/asm-i386/delay.h	Mon Jun  7 12:16:42 2004
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
 extern void __delay(unsigned long loops);
 
 #define udelay(n) (__builtin_constant_p(n) ? \
-	((n) > 20000 ? __bad_udelay() : __const_udelay((n) * 0x10c6ul)) : \
+	((n) > 20000 ? __bad_udelay() : __const_udelay((n) * 0x10c7ul)) : \
 	__udelay(n))
 	
 #define ndelay(n) (__builtin_constant_p(n) ? \