Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 06:57:28PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 May 2006 17:09:41 +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
>>> + omap_writew(0, (OMAP_MPUIO_BASE + OMAP_MPUIO_IO_CNTL));
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Could that be done in a macro?
>
> Is there any benefit to doing so?
>
>>> + udelay(0.04);
>> Floating point in the kernel?
>
> Not quite. udelay is a macro on ARM so this ends up as an integer before
> it ever hits a function call. In an ideal world I'd use "ndelay(40);"
> but that would result in a delay of over 1µs as ARM doesn't have ndelay
> defined so we hit the generic fallback.
Use instead:
/* delay for at least 40 ns */
udelay(1);
Or better yet provide an ndelay implementation for ARM.
David Vrabel
--
David Vrabel, Design Engineer
Arcom, Clifton Road Tel: +44 (0)1223 411200 ext. 3233
Cambridge CB1 7EA, UK Web: http://www.arcom.com/
-
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/
[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]
