Re: [PATCH 2.6.14-rt11 2/3] Switch to using get_cycles() rather than get_cpu_tick()

* Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote:

> In a few different drivers we had what boiled down to a custom 
> implementation of get_cycles().  On i386 and ppc32 this was the same 
> code, and I assume similar for ARM and MIPS.  In one case 
> (kernel/latency.c) it really was get_cycles() in the !i386 case.  
> Always using get_cycles() makes new platform bringup easier.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <[email protected]>

thanks, applied.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

References:
- [PATCH 2.6.14-rt11 1/3] Fix LPPTEST Kconfig dependancies
  - From: Tom Rini <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 2.6.14-rt11 2/3] Switch to using get_cycles() rather than get_cpu_tick()
  - From: Tom Rini <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 2.6.14-rt11 1/3] Fix LPPTEST Kconfig dependancies
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2.6.14-rt11 3/3] Fix ppc32 bootwrapper code for new zlib
Previous by thread: [PATCH 2.6.14-rt11 2/3] Switch to using get_cycles() rather than get_cpu_tick()
Next by thread: [PATCH 2.6.14-rt11 3/3] Fix ppc32 bootwrapper code for new zlib
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]