Messages in this thread | | | From | "Paul H. Hargrove" <> | Subject | Re: loops_per_sec | Date | Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:09:52 -0700 (PDT) |
| |
Martin Mares writes: [snip] > I don't understand why udelay() is inline -- IMHO it would be useful > to make it a standard function using loops_per_sec on [34]86's and > the cycle counter on 586+. Another possibility is to read current > value of the hardware timer instead. This would eliminate all the > udelay alignment problems discussed some time ago. [snip]
One reason that comes to mind is that we don't know the timing of the function call and return, though I doubt they are significant in most cases. -- Paul H. Hargrove All material not otherwise attributed hargrove@sccm.stanford.edu is the opinion of the author or a typo.
| |