[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxxH0HE9SfUoLVqsvDKO0PfeM+vSoDmbXQv85yJcPZoPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 12:09:19 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Jonathan Austin <jonathan.austin@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Improving udelay/ndelay on platforms where that is possible
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Marc Gonzalez
<marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com> wrote:
>
> By default, ndelay is implemented in terms of udelay.
That's very much *NOT* the case.
Yes, there is a *fallback* for when somebody doesn't do ndelay() at
all, but that doesn't make it the default.
It's just a "the architecture didn't implement ndelay at all, we'll
work around it".
So stop this idiocy already. About half of what I've seen in this
thread has been pure garbage.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists