From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <4CD1ECF7.5030105@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:15:03 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] ARM: Translate delay.S into (mostly) C
References: <1288300770-18350-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org>	 <1288300770-18350-2-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <1288808841.23615.5.camel@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <1288808841.23615.5.camel@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, Daniel Walker <dwalker@codeaurora.org>, Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>, Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-ID: <linux-arm-msm.vger.kernel.org>

On 11/03/2010 11:27 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 21:19 +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> Nico expressed concern that fixed lpj cmdlines will break due to
>> compiler optimizations. That doesn't seem to be the case since
>> before and after this patch I get the same lpj value when running
>> my CPU at 19.2 MHz. That should be sufficiently slow enough to
>> cover any machine running Linux.
>
> I appreciate this is an exceptional case, but there are some lucky
> guys at ARM who (as routinely as they can) boot Linux on sub 1MHz
> hardware. The delay loop is something they're keen to avoid so they do
> make use of the lpj= command line option and would rather it didn't
> break on them.

Do you know if it breaks at that frequency? I don't have any hardware to
test with that goes lower than the stated 19.2 MHz.

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