From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: schen@mvista.com (Steve Chen)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:26:49 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] arm: remove unused code in delay.S
In-Reply-To: <m3k4zzdimy.fsf@intrepid.localdomain>
References: <1252875960-21512-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
	<20090915103739.GA19519@elf.ucw.cz>
	<1253017761.3273.117.camel@linux-1lbu>
	<200909151541.08852.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
	<1253032210.3273.128.camel@linux-1lbu>
	<94a0d4530909151158y489a96e3x63ff932c713822b0@mail.gmail.com>
	<1253043875.3273.131.camel@linux-1lbu>
	<m3k4zzdimy.fsf@intrepid.localdomain>
Message-ID: <1253053609.3273.139.camel@linux-1lbu>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 23:04 +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Steve Chen <schen@mvista.com> writes:
> 
> > +config OLD_CPU_DELAY
> > +	depends on CPU_32v3 || CPU_32v4 || CPU_32v4T
> > +	bool "Accurate delays"
> > +	def_bool n
> > +	help
> > +	  Enable if observing longer than expected delays and need more
> > +	  accuracy.  This only applies to older CPUs.
> > +
> 
> If it's that simple then why not enable the extra delay code
> unconditionally when compiling for those CPUs?
> 
> We don't need "do something better" options.

If I know for sure that these are the processors that need that block of
code, your suggestion makes perfect sense.  Unfortunately, I don't know.
My primary goals are

1.  Put a stop to this thread (so far I have failed miserably)
2.  Document that block of code.
3.  If it makes someone's life easier.. it would be a bonus.

Steve