From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 2/4] ARM: Allow machines to override __delay() From: Daniel Walker In-Reply-To: <4CFFEB00.5090807@codeaurora.org> 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> <4CFFE965.30906@codeaurora.org> <1291839992.12568.31.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <4CFFEB00.5090807@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 13:07:59 -0800 Message-ID: <1291842479.12568.39.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Saravana Kannan , Nicolas Pitre , John Stultz , Brian Swetland , Arve Hj?nnev?g List-ID: On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 12:30 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 12/08/2010 12:26 PM, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > The last time I thought you said there was no size change ? My tests > > showed a decrease .. > > Oh, right. There was no size change when I moved __delay() into the > header in addition to the others. So is there a problem with doing the inlining then ? If you get the same size kernel, then that seems like a lateral move in your case. Daniel -- Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.