On 12/08/2010 11:22 AM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 20:38 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> +
>> +static void (*delay_fn)(unsigned long) = delay_loop;
>> +
>> +void set_delay_fn(void (*fn)(unsigned long))
>> +{
>> + delay_fn = fn;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * loops = usecs * HZ * loops_per_jiffy / 1000000
>> + */
>> +void __delay(unsigned long loops)
>> +{
>> + delay_fn(loops);
>> +}
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__delay);
> Didn't we already go over this part ? Why are aren't you putting these
> in a header file ?
Last time we saw that inlining set_delay_fn() actually increased the
text size of the kernel. I know it sounds wrong, but its probably due to
that compiler behavior Russell posted about last month on arm-lkml.
I'd like to see what Russell wants to do since so far he's been silent
on this whole series.
--
Sent by an employee 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
