On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 12:13:48PM +0200, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >Well, at first, I wanted to implement it the same way on PPC. However, it
> >dies on all occurences where udelay is called with a non-constant expression.
> >
> >I spotted this case in a few PPC specific stuffs (fixable),
> Wouldn't it be better to use an #error directive? I'm sure this could turn
> into a FAQ, even though the symbol is called "__bad_udelay()".
You cant do that trick since #error is pre-processor, otherwise - yes
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
>
>Yep. This is a huge release patch anyway so resynching the stuff is fine.
>What I wont take is stuff touching core code
I do have a 2 lines patch to the common ide code that fix a problem when
revalidating a CD-ROM after sleep, but it was ack'ed by Andre Hedrick. I
also have a two-liners to k
"Chris Swiedler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> > > 2.2.18pre15 defines udelay as (in file include/asm-i386/delay.h) :
|> > > extern void __bad_udelay(void);
|> > >
|> > > #define udelay(n) (__builtin_constant_p(n) ? \
|> > > ((n) > 2 ? __bad_udelay() : __const_udelay((n) *
|> > > 0x1
> > 2.2.18pre15 defines udelay as (in file include/asm-i386/delay.h) :
> > extern void __bad_udelay(void);
> >
> > #define udelay(n) (__builtin_constant_p(n) ? \
> > ((n) > 2 ? __bad_udelay() : __const_udelay((n) *
> > 0x10c6ul)) : \
> > __udelay(n))
> >
> > ...
> > It seems __
> later, I have to extract them from my tree. Well... would you accept a
> huge pile of PPC patches for 2.2.18 in this case, I can send you my
> current diffs (with a bit of cleanup) ?
Yep. This is a huge release patch anyway so resynching the stuff is fine.
What I wont take is stuff touching co
>>
>> Well, at first, I wanted to implement it the same way on PPC. However, it
>> dies on all occurences where udelay is called with a non-constant
>expression.
>
>__builtin_constant_p means non constant expressions will always call udelay
>
>> I spotted this case in a few PPC specific stuffs (f
> >> #define udelay(n) (__builtin_constant_p(n) ? \
> >> ((n) > 2 ? __bad_udelay() : __const_udelay((n) *
> >> 0x10c6ul)) : \
> >> __udelay(n))
> >>
> >> ...
> >> It seems __bad_udelay is not defined anywhere in the kernel source.
> >
> >Correct. Its a compile time error tra
>Well, at first, I wanted to implement it the same way on PPC. However, it
>dies on all occurences where udelay is called with a non-constant expression.
>
>I spotted this case in a few PPC specific stuffs (fixable), but also in
>the sys_nanosleep code, and in the de4x5 driver.
Hrm... looks like
>> 2.2.18pre15 defines udelay as (in file include/asm-i386/delay.h) :
>> extern void __bad_udelay(void);
>>
>> #define udelay(n) (__builtin_constant_p(n) ? \
>> ((n) > 2 ? __bad_udelay() : __const_udelay((n) *
>> 0x10c6ul)) : \
>> __udelay(n))
>>
>> ...
>> It seems __bad_ud
Marcelo Tosatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 2.2.18pre15 defines udelay as (in file include/asm-i386/delay.h) :
>
> ...
>
> extern void __bad_udelay(void);
>
> ...
>
> #define udelay(n) (__builtin_constant_p(n) ? \
> ((n) > 2 ? __bad_udelay() : __const_udelay((n) *
> 0x10c6ul)) : \
> 2.2.18pre15 defines udelay as (in file include/asm-i386/delay.h) :
> extern void __bad_udelay(void);
>
> #define udelay(n) (__builtin_constant_p(n) ? \
> ((n) > 2 ? __bad_udelay() : __const_udelay((n) *
> 0x10c6ul)) : \
> __udelay(n))
>
> ...
> It seems __bad_udelay is no
Marcelo Tosatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2.2.18pre15 defines udelay as (in file include/asm-i386/delay.h) :
>
> ...
>
> extern void __bad_udelay(void);
>
> ...
>
> #define udelay(n) (__builtin_constant_p(n) ? \
> ((n) > 2 ? __bad_udelay() : __const_udelay((n) *
> 0x10c6ul))
2.2.18pre15 defines udelay as (in file include/asm-i386/delay.h) :
...
extern void __bad_udelay(void);
...
#define udelay(n) (__builtin_constant_p(n) ? \
((n) > 2 ? __bad_udelay() : __const_udelay((n) *
0x10c6ul)) : \
__udelay(n))
...
It seems __bad_udelay is not defi
14 matches
Mail list logo
