On Saturday 10 of December 2011 at 01:25:03, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:00:01AM +0100, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote: > > > > Those were BogoMIPS, ... > > I realise that. But which is which - is 70.40 from recalibrate_delay > or is it 74.54? Your message is too vague to be able to interpret your > results because it's impossible to work out what figure refers to which > method. Yes, I realised what you had actually asked about after re-reading your answer, which I unfortunately did after I had already replied, sorry. > > ... Then, in case of a machine always booting at, let's say, 12 and > > then reprogrammed to 150 MHz, we actually scale up that less then the > > theoretical number, with a side effect of scaling up its error as well. > > Perhaps in this case, when the machine is going to run at that target > > rate until rebooted, we should rather decide to recalibrate to keep > > that error proportionally small compared to the target loops per > > jiffy value ... > > It really doesn't matter - udelay() etc is not designed to be mega > accurate but good enough... Great, that's the answer to my initial question: loops per jiffy inaccuracy of 6% shouldn't matter. Thanks, Janusz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
