Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:49:20 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arm: remove unused code in delay.S |
| |
On Tue 2009-09-15 13:47:01, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote: > > > >> >> > Because then you get it whenever you configure for V4 as the lowest > >> >> > denominator CPU, which leads to the buggy behaviour on better CPUs. > >> >> > It's far better to leave it as is and just accept that the old CPUs > >> >> > will have longer than necessary delays. If people really really > >> >> > care (and there's likely to only be a small minority of them now) > >> >> > changing the '0' to a '1' is a very simple change for them to carry > >> >> > in their local tree. Unlike getting the right unrolling etc. > >> >> > >> >> Well, they can also 'git revert' this patch. If somebody really cares > >> >> I think they should shout now and provide a better patch, otherwise > >> >> this one should be merged. > >> > > >> > On the other hand, having the code there as it currently stands is not > >> > harmful in any way, so leaving it there is just as easy. > >> > >> It makes the code less understandable. I'm not sure about linux's > >> practices, but an #if 0 generally means somebody is being lazy. > > > > Not in this case, as you was explained to you. You may want to add > > explaining comment above #if 0.... > > Yes, but I've no idea in which situations somebody might want to > enable that code. Old chips? Which old chips?
If you udelay() produces too long delays, as was explained in the thread. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |