From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: felipe.contreras@gmail.com (Felipe Contreras) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:20:00 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] arm: remove unused code in delay.S In-Reply-To: <20090915104919.GE19989@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20090913230008.GC30169@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20090914081001.GB14519@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <94a0d4530909140558nd8d2c47lc9954563c80a574f@mail.gmail.com> <20090914140059.GC21580@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <94a0d4530909140738t7e4d646r134cfd884da21348@mail.gmail.com> <20090914144028.GG21580@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <94a0d4530909140814w36f7f5f0td2c25db07fbd4e57@mail.gmail.com> <20090915103739.GA19519@elf.ucw.cz> <94a0d4530909150347h642772bvc8175109393e905f@mail.gmail.com> <20090915104919.GE19989@elf.ucw.cz> Message-ID: <94a0d4530909150420g38fff8a5l60db68bc98002339@mail.gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2009-09-15 13:47:01, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Pavel Machek 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. Yeah, on "older CPUs", and what constitutes an "older CPU" has not been defined. -- Felipe Contreras