From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: felipe.contreras@gmail.com (Felipe Contreras) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:58:19 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] arm: remove unused code in delay.S In-Reply-To: <1253032210.3273.128.camel@linux-1lbu> 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> Message-ID: <94a0d4530909151158y489a96e3x63ff932c713822b0@mail.gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Steve Chen wrote: > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 15:41 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> > -#if 0 >> > +#if CONFIG_OLD_CPU_DELAY >> >> ifdef please >> > I assume this a vote in favor of considering this patch as an > alternative :) ?The updated patch is below. ?Since I'm only summarizing > the e-mail thread and put them into a patch (which is a less time > consuming process than continue reading and deleting e-mails on this > thread), contributors can add signed off before submitting to Russel. > > Document #if 0 code block in delay.S and make it selectable for compile. Nice :) A few nitpicks though: > Signed-off-by: Steve Chen > > --- > > ?arch/arm/Kconfig ? ? | ? ?8 ++++++++ > ?arch/arm/lib/delay.S | ? ?2 +- > ?2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig > index aef63c8..ca8d535 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig > @@ -813,6 +813,14 @@ config ARM_ERRATA_460075 > ? ? ? ? ?ACTLR register. Note that setting specific bits in the ACTLR > register > ? ? ? ? ?may not be available in non-secure mode. > > +config OLD_CPU_DELAY > + ? ? ? depends on CPU_32v3 || CPU_32v4 || CPU_32v4T > + ? ? ? bool "Accurate delays for older CPU" s/older CPU/old CPUs/ Or even better, since this option will only appear on older CPUs: "Accurate delays" > + ? ? ? def_bool n > + ? ? ? help > + ? ? ? ? Enable if observing longer than expected delays and need more > + ? ? ? ? accurate delays on older CPUs. How about: > + Enable if observing longer than expected delays and need more > + accuracy. This should only be considered for old CPUs (e.g. foo, bar). Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras