> where the code assoicated with the DELAY function is indented. The
> above comparison also desn't include the fact that __udelay contains
> about six movl+leal pairs that __const_udelay does not have.
>
> So, if getting small delays without extra overhead is that important, then
> this patch is even more efficient than the original (103 and earlier)
> behaviour, and I trust you will agree after comparing the resulting
> assembly.
No. Right solution is to look over ncr53c8xx.c, and kill DELAY()
altogether. It can be replaced by udelay() and mdelay()s one by one. I
did it and patch is waiting somewhere in the mail que. It makes code
more efficient and much more readable.
Pavel
-- The best software in life is free (not shareware)! Pavel GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu