[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CFFE965.30906@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:24:05 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>
CC: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 2/4] ARM: Allow machines to override __delay()
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-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