On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Timur Tabi <ti...@freescale.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Jon Smirl <jonsm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Then why did you need to make your routine that calls cpu_relax()? > > That gets called only if delay == 0. udelay(0) is a no-op, so if the > caller specifies no delay, then I need to manually call cpu_relax(). > >> I don't know what goes on in the guts of HMT_low() and cpu_relax(), >> when you guys decide which one I should use let me know and I can >> adjust the patch. > > Grant, I don't see any reason why "udelay(50)" is unacceptable.
It's not. See my last email. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
