Yes this value should be measured and provided in board defconfig to
produce valid timings, please take a look:
https://nuttx.apache.org/docs/latest/applications/examples/calib_udelay/index.html
Can you please measure and provide valid value for that board
configurations? :-)
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
Hi, thanks for the reply. I did spot the relevant discussion here on
mailing list when this change was introduced but - in my opinion - there
is no correct value that can be provided. I went into more details here
- https://lists.apache.org/thread/xjpyjb8r2v50bpx1j8c50podr90wr6t6
(starting with paragraph 3)
As far as I can see, there is one other architecture -
arch/risc-v/src/mpfs - that does not use CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC for
up_udelay (or at least it tries not to - again, more in that thread and
the one linked there.)
