lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: poor change in ncr53c8xx/linux-2.1.104
Hi!

> where the code assoicated with the DELAY function is indented. The
> above comparison also desn't include the fact that __udelay contains
> about six movl+leal pairs that __const_udelay does not have.
>
> So, if getting small delays without extra overhead is that important, then
> this patch is even more efficient than the original (103 and earlier)
> behaviour, and I trust you will agree after comparing the resulting
> assembly.

No. Right solution is to look over ncr53c8xx.c, and kill DELAY()
altogether. It can be replaced by udelay() and mdelay()s one by one. I
did it and patch is waiting somewhere in the mail que. It makes code
more efficient and much more readable.

Pavel

--
The best software in life is free (not shareware)! Pavel
GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.120 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site