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-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
