[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Too much error in __const_udelay() ?
    On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 12:12:48PM -0700, john stultz wrote:
    > I agree w/ Pavel that rounding up sounds better, but I can't get the
    > math to work, so this may be the best solution.

    It's some strange sort of rounding, see my patch "3"...

    > I'm also spinning up a patch w/ these changes to test, let me know how
    > your testing went and I'll do the same.

    Testing went fine -- even for the PMTMR-based delay case [*].


    [*] though I noticed the cpufreq notifier breaks then: it updates
    loops_per_jiffy without evaluating if it's indeed TSC- or even
    frequency-based. It'll fail on cyclone, too, I think...
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.020 / U:57.460 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site