From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jamie@shareable.org (Jamie Lokier)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:32:57 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] arm: remove unused code in delay.S
In-Reply-To: <20090916134721.GA11218@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
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>
	<20090916134721.GA11218@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <20090917193257.GA10599@shareable.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:04:37PM +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?
> 
> Because it's really not that clear cut.  Eg, ARM610 and ARM710 work
> better with it, but StrongARM suffers from delays being too short.
> Having a kernel configured for all those processors used to be common
> (since the Acorn RiscPC had pluggable CPU cards, which could be one
> of those processors.)
> 
> It's really something that only experienced people should worry
> about, and not Joe "kernel-builder" Bloggs.

I'm confused now.  If I'm building a "generic" kernel to run on
several different systems, including some ARM710s and some StrongARMs,
do I include the code or not?

Btw, do you know where PT110 fits in?  Is it like StrongARM (SA110)?

Thanks,
-- Jamie