Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756215Ab0KCR5o (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:57:44 -0400 Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:60445 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751867Ab0KCR5k (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:57:40 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6156"; a="60501354" Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] ARM: Translate delay.S into (mostly) C From: Daniel Walker To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Stephen Boyd , Russell King , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Saravana Kannan , Colin Cross , Kevin Hilman , Santosh Shilimkar In-Reply-To: <1288300770-18350-2-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> References: <1288300770-18350-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <1288300770-18350-2-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 10:57:34 -0700 Message-ID: <1288807054.16859.2.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1424 Lines: 33 On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 14:19 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > We want to allow machines to override the __delay() implementation > at runtime so they can use a timer based __delay() routine. It's > easier to do this using C, so let's write udelay and friends in C. > > We lose the #if 0 code, which according to Russell is used "to > make the delay loop more stable and predictable on older CPUs" > (see http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/888867 for more > info). We shouldn't be too worried though, since we'll soon add > functionality allowing a machine to set the __delay() loop > themselves, thus allowing machines to resurrect the commented out > code should they need it. > > Nico expressed concern that fixed lpj cmdlines will break due to > compiler optimizations. That doesn't seem to be the case since > before and after this patch I get the same lpj value when running > my CPU at 19.2 MHz. That should be sufficiently slow enough to > cover any machine running Linux. Nico, are you ready to sign off on this? Daniel -- Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- 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/