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=dYZMP/kmmk3riMxBuSmNHy87o4NWuVJSo85pOTJk2bZuv0qcMKT9E1qQSDVoSdWb/b
         y+A9YB8bTVF1YCigEpqKNJefVH+o+yH9O4tonubFM9NP/P+a6m/bTYddtmLG0bIqhutv
         mN83/alzERbdiDbVmgkcbAfVSuAP4MjizTyes=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20090915104919.GE19989@elf.ucw.cz>
References: <20090913230008.GC30169@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	 <20090914081001.GB14519@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	 <94a0d4530909140558nd8d2c47lc9954563c80a574f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20090914140059.GC21580@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	 <94a0d4530909140738t7e4d646r134cfd884da21348@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20090914144028.GG21580@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	 <94a0d4530909140814w36f7f5f0td2c25db07fbd4e57@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20090915103739.GA19519@elf.ucw.cz>
	 <94a0d4530909150347h642772bvc8175109393e905f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20090915104919.GE19989@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:20:00 +0300
Message-ID: <94a0d4530909150420g38fff8a5l60db68bc98002339@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: remove unused code in delay.S
From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
       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: 1907
Lines: 39

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> On Tue 2009-09-15 13:47:01, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> > 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > On the other hand, having the code there as it currently stands is not
>> >> > harmful in any way, so leaving it there is just as easy.
>> >>
>> >> It makes the code less understandable. I'm not sure about linux's
>> >> practices, but an #if 0 generally means somebody is being lazy.
>> >
>> > Not in this case, as you was explained to you. You may want to add
>> > explaining comment above #if 0....
>>
>> Yes, but I've no idea in which situations somebody might want to
>> enable that code. Old chips? Which old chips?
>
> If you udelay() produces too long delays, as was explained in the thread.

Yeah, on "older CPUs", and what constitutes an "older CPU" has not been defined.

-- 
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/