Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-07 Thread Doug Anderson
John, On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:46 PM, John Stultz wrote: > On 05/07/2014 11:32 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: >> John, >> >> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:10 AM, John Stultz wrote: >>> On 05/06/2014 09:19 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: John, On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM, John Stultz wrote:

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-07 Thread John Stultz
On 05/07/2014 11:32 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: > John, > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:10 AM, John Stultz wrote: >> On 05/06/2014 09:19 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: >>> John, >>> >>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM, John Stultz wrote: Really, I'm curious about the backstory that made you generate

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-07 Thread Doug Anderson
John, On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:10 AM, John Stultz wrote: > On 05/06/2014 09:19 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: >> John, >> >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM, John Stultz wrote: >>> Really, I'm curious about the backstory that made you generate the test? >>> I assume something bit you where udelay was

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-07 Thread John Stultz
On 05/06/2014 09:19 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > John, > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM, John Stultz wrote: >> On 05/06/2014 05:12 PM, David Riley wrote: >>> This change adds a module and a script that makes use of it to >>> validate that udelay delays for at least as long as requested >>> (as

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-07 Thread David Riley
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > John, > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM, John Stultz wrote: >> On 05/06/2014 05:12 PM, David Riley wrote: >>> This change adds a module and a script that makes use of it to >>> validate that udelay delays for at least as long as requested

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-07 Thread David Riley
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org wrote: John, On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM, John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote: On 05/06/2014 05:12 PM, David Riley wrote: This change adds a module and a script that makes use of it to validate that udelay delays for

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-07 Thread John Stultz
On 05/06/2014 09:19 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: John, On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM, John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote: On 05/06/2014 05:12 PM, David Riley wrote: This change adds a module and a script that makes use of it to validate that udelay delays for at least as long as requested

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-07 Thread Doug Anderson
John, On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:10 AM, John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote: On 05/06/2014 09:19 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: John, On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM, John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote: Really, I'm curious about the backstory that made you generate the test? I assume

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-07 Thread John Stultz
On 05/07/2014 11:32 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: John, On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:10 AM, John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote: On 05/06/2014 09:19 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: John, On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM, John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote: Really, I'm curious about the backstory

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-07 Thread Doug Anderson
John, On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:46 PM, John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote: On 05/07/2014 11:32 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: John, On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:10 AM, John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote: On 05/06/2014 09:19 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: John, On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM,

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-06 Thread Doug Anderson
John, On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM, John Stultz wrote: > On 05/06/2014 05:12 PM, David Riley wrote: >> This change adds a module and a script that makes use of it to >> validate that udelay delays for at least as long as requested >> (as compared to ktime). > > Interesting. > > So

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-06 Thread John Stultz
On 05/06/2014 05:12 PM, David Riley wrote: > This change adds a module and a script that makes use of it to > validate that udelay delays for at least as long as requested > (as compared to ktime). Interesting. So fundamentally, udelay is a good bit fuzzier accuracy wise then ktime_get(), as it

[PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-06 Thread David Riley
This change adds a module and a script that makes use of it to validate that udelay delays for at least as long as requested (as compared to ktime). David Riley (2): kernel: time: Add udelay_test module to validate udelay tools: add script to test udelay kernel/time/Kconfig |7 ++

[PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-06 Thread David Riley
This change adds a module and a script that makes use of it to validate that udelay delays for at least as long as requested (as compared to ktime). David Riley (2): kernel: time: Add udelay_test module to validate udelay tools: add script to test udelay kernel/time/Kconfig |7 ++

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-06 Thread John Stultz
On 05/06/2014 05:12 PM, David Riley wrote: This change adds a module and a script that makes use of it to validate that udelay delays for at least as long as requested (as compared to ktime). Interesting. So fundamentally, udelay is a good bit fuzzier accuracy wise then ktime_get(), as it may

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay

2014-05-06 Thread Doug Anderson
John, On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM, John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote: On 05/06/2014 05:12 PM, David Riley wrote: This change adds a module and a script that makes use of it to validate that udelay delays for at least as long as requested (as compared to ktime). Interesting. So