From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Landley Subject: Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl. Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:05:00 -0600 Message-ID: <200901032105.00779.rob@landley.net> References: <200901020207.30359.rob@landley.net> <200901031346.01325.rob@landley.net> <4960068A.3040109@shaw.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4960068A.3040109@shaw.ca> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Robert Hancock Cc: Matthieu CASTET , Arkadiusz Miskiewicz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Embedded Linux mailing list , Andrew Morton , "H. Peter Anvin" , Sam Ravnborg On Saturday 03 January 2009 18:44:58 Robert Hancock wrote: > Rob Landley wrote: > > For the record, the reason I can't just pregenerate all these suckers on > > a system that's got an arbitrary precision calculator (ala dc) and then > > just ship the resulting header files (more or less the what the first > > version of that first patch did) is that some architectures (arm omap and > > and arm at91) allow you to enter arbitrary HZ values in kconfig. (Their > > help text says that in many cases values that aren't powers of two won't > > work, but nothing enforces this.) So if we didn't have the capability to > > dynamically generate these, you could enter a .config value that would > > break the build. > > Is there a good reason that these archs allow you enter arbitrary HZ > values? Not that I've noticed, no. But you should ask Thomas Gleixner about that about that, I'm not a domain expert... > The use case for using custom HZ values at all nowadays seems > fairly low now that dynticks is around (if that arch supports it > anyway), let alone being able to specify wierd obscure values for it. And high performance event timers. A kernel can have more than one time source these days... Rob