Re: [PATCH] arm: remove unused code in delay.S

[Felipe Contreras]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue 2009-09-15 13:47:01, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> 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. ÂIf 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. ÂUnlike 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/