DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=sHEVi7Dzzj1DeYzNVpMQhdERosp4VSEczcmglct2X7170SYW721t6XGR6HcmgPEQ5k
         6LV+P2lq0yJlobT7+KJfOAF6kFahcigf+eKSlRBn8H3RSUmgEc4JyXUPygS/kYC14wSr
         n+gMxAgnefTHfOFlDJJUzeiPZfldlz7rVzDq4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20090914140059.GC21580@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1252875960-21512-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
	 <200909132328.47079.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
	 <20090913230008.GC30169@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	 <20090914002100.GD30621@shareable.org>
	 <20090914081001.GB14519@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	 <94a0d4530909140558nd8d2c47lc9954563c80a574f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20090914140059.GC21580@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:38:32 +0300
Message-ID: <94a0d4530909140738t7e4d646r134cfd884da21348@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: remove unused code in delay.S
From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2073
Lines: 48

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 03:58:24PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 01:21:00AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>> >> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 11:28:47PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> >> > > >                 bhi     __delay
>> >> > > >                 mov     pc, lr
>> >> > > >  ENDPROC(__udelay)
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > Hi
>> >> > >
>> >> > > why was this code there in the first place ?
>> >> >
>> >> > To make the delay loop more stable and predictable on older CPUs.
>> >>
>> >> So why has it been commented out, if it's needed for that?
>> >
>> > We moved on and it penalises later CPUs, leading to udelay providing
>> > shorter delays than requested.
>> >
>> > So the choice was either stable and predictable on older CPUs but
>> > buggy on newer CPUs, or correct on all CPUs but gives unnecessarily
>> > longer delays on older CPUs.
>>
>> Why not add an #ifdef CPU_V4 or whatever?
>
> Because then you get it whenever you configure for V4 as the lowest
> denominator CPU, which leads to the buggy behaviour on better CPUs.
> It's far better to leave it as is and just accept that the old CPUs
> will have longer than necessary delays.  If people really really
> care (and there's likely to only be a small minority of them now)
> changing the '0' to a '1' is a very simple change for them to carry
> in their local tree.  Unlike getting the right unrolling etc.

Well, they can also 'git revert' this patch. If somebody really cares
I think they should shout now and provide a better patch, otherwise
this one should be merged.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/