Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 May 2006 11:01:05 +0100 | From | Jonathan McDowell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Add Amstrad Delta NAND support. |
| |
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |