[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CD1ECF7.5030105@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:15:03 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] ARM: Translate delay.S into (mostly) C
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.
--
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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists