From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932731AbaFKQ72 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:59:28 -0400 Received: from mail-ve0-f177.google.com ([209.85.128.177]:50174 "EHLO mail-ve0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751220AbaFKQ71 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:59:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1399421543-7751-1-git-send-email-davidriley@chromium.org> <1400106617-17085-1-git-send-email-davidriley@chromium.org> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:59:26 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Add test to validate udelay From: John Stultz To: David Riley Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Doug Anderson , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , David Riley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:41 PM, David Riley wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering if there were any comments to this patch or if it was > picked up somewhere? So I guess it got left in a bit of an ambiguous spot. The basic point of this test is to verify there is a sane counter time-based delay on freq shifting systems. You've addressed my only false positive concern, and so I'm not opposed to including it. However, there was the following discussion of why this test was wanted, and that was due to a system that didn't have a counter time based delay (instead using the loop delay) which was running into problems with cpufreq changes. That discussion wandered a bit, but the consensus was "don't do that". I sort of mixed the messages and associated that feedback with this patch as well, so my apologies. Just to be clear, it might be good to more clearly target this test as a validation to ensure systems don't use those bad configs. So If you want to resend with that extra context in the commit message, I'll go ahead and queue it (looking at 3.17) thanks -john