[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=KU_zUrBsp0a9iJyj6RmTgYqZcffQynTV-2tKW@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 11:10:03 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...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>,
Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mattias Wallin <Mattias.Wallin@...ricsson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 0/4] ARM: Fixing udelay() for SMP and non-SMP systems
2010/12/20 Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>:
> These patches fix the udelay() issue pointed out on
> arm-lkml[1][2]. A quick recap: some SMP machines can scale
> their CPU frequencies independent of one another. loops_per_jiffy
> is calibrated globally and used in __const_udelay(). If one CPU
> is running faster than what the loops_per_jiffy is calculated
> (or scaled) for, udelay() will be incorrect and not wait long
> enough (or too long). A similar problem occurs if the cpu
> frequency is scaled during a udelay() call.
Hwt's happening to this patch set? We have applied it and
implemented a timer for the U8500.
Tested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Mattias WALLIN can probably also provide a Tested-by:
from ST-Ericsson if it helps.
Generally I think this is good and important stuff that should
be merged, will you be submitting it to Russells patch tracker
or pull request for 2.6.39?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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