On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 12:24 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> 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.
The last time I thought you said there was no size change ? My tests
showed a decrease ..
What compiler optimizations are you talking about ?
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
