From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:24:05 -0800
Subject: [PATCHv3 2/4] ARM: Allow machines to override __delay()
In-Reply-To: <1291836162.12568.17.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com>
References: <1291783128-27520-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org>	
	<1291783128-27520-3-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org>
	<1291836162.12568.17.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com>
Message-ID: <4CFFE965.30906@codeaurora.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 12/08/2010 11:22 AM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 20:38 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> +
>> +static void (*delay_fn)(unsigned long) = delay_loop;
>> +
>> +void set_delay_fn(void (*fn)(unsigned long))
>> +{
>> +       delay_fn = fn;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * loops = usecs * HZ * loops_per_jiffy / 1000000
>> + */
>> +void __delay(unsigned long loops)
>> +{
>> +       delay_fn(loops);
>> +}
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(__delay);
> Didn't we already go over this part ? Why are aren't you putting these
> in a header file ?

Last time we saw that inlining set_delay_fn() actually increased the
text size of the kernel. I know it sounds wrong, but its probably due to
that compiler behavior Russell posted about last month on arm-lkml.

I'd like to see what Russell wants to do since so far he's been silent
on this whole series.

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.