On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:32:37AM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> 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);
Using "ndelay(40);" here would seem to make more sense; it's equivalent
at present and means that once I or someone else provided an ndelay
implementation for ARM the driver wouldn't need changed to take
advantage of it.
J.
--
/------------------------------------\
| Ships log... erm... one. |
| http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ |
\------------------------------------/
-
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]
