On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 16:15 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 11/03/2010 11:27 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > > Hi Stephen, > > > > On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 21:19 +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >> 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. > > > > I appreciate this is an exceptional case, but there are some lucky > > guys at ARM who (as routinely as they can) boot Linux on sub 1MHz > > hardware. The delay loop is something they're keen to avoid so they do > > make use of the lpj= command line option and would rather it didn't > > break on them. > > Do you know if it breaks at that frequency? I don't have any hardware to > test with that goes lower than the stated 19.2 MHz. Isn't it possible that a new compiler could optimize the code differently, and then end up breaking lpj= ? 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
