[PATCH] arm: remove unused code in delay.S

[felipe.contreras@gmail.com (Felipe Contreras)]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 03:58:24PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 01:21:00AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>> >> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 11:28:47PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> >> > > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? bhi ? ? __delay
>> >> > > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? mov ? ? pc, lr
>> >> > > > ?ENDPROC(__udelay)
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > Hi
>> >> > >
>> >> > > why was this code there in the first place ?
>> >> >
>> >> > To make the delay loop more stable and predictable on older CPUs.
>> >>
>> >> So why has it been commented out, if it's needed for that?
>> >
>> > We moved on and it penalises later CPUs, leading to udelay providing
>> > shorter delays than requested.
>> >
>> > So the choice was either stable and predictable on older CPUs but
>> > buggy on newer CPUs, or correct on all CPUs but gives unnecessarily
>> > longer delays on older CPUs.
>>
>> Why not add an #ifdef CPU_V4 or whatever?
>
> 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.

-- 
Felipe Contreras