Re: loops_per_sec
Paul H. Hargrove (hargrove@sccm.Stanford.EDU)
Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Mares writes:
[snip]
> I don't understand why udelay() is inline -- IMHO it would be useful
> to make it a standard function using loops_per_sec on [34]86's and
> the cycle counter on 586+. Another possibility is to read current
> value of the hardware timer instead. This would eliminate all the
> udelay alignment problems discussed some time ago.
[snip]
One reason that comes to mind is that we don't know the timing of the
function call and return, though I doubt they are significant in most
cases.
--
Paul H. Hargrove All material not otherwise attributed
hargrove@sccm.stanford.edu is the opinion of the author or a typo.