linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 3/5] Deforest the function pointer jungle in the time code.

To: "Ralf Baechle" <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] Deforest the function pointer jungle in the time code.
From: "Franck Bui-Huu" <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:34:46 +0200
Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=CR7hY2QXfX7CibH1bDRaJLKphbxizpl0+BdvjLEi6nVNCt3y7cNA9821x5LmdiLVbg1wz5qFVktFJSG1UQ6P4gAtCTrcJTku2UbPltcznbmKWqzKnRH8oqlXHXwi12Yl8ugDJ8gmEazADeAIdBb16RhurFBMzjvbTnOKifVl170=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=lmNG6Vq8KGrfIx5g1c4qvtYGX9AIZ+8Minr5JXJ6MvYGYOLC5xiFa9m5X9rOicxlSEl8YPvnb0b+Hw6vojV6963tSdVIj6C9Dq5eYNZcB5ja+NJBWE7vgq2D/IWIrfcyT5w795kpuBmeatp0Dmcm9wsn6aIDB2NBc368vC0iLD0=
In-reply-to: <20070615143838.GA11094@linux-mips.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <11818164023940-git-send-email-fbuihuu@gmail.com> <cda58cb80706140643g63c3bf34sbd5b843a15653c3d@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0706141501080.25868@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <cda58cb80706140731j1b6e8e36l96d4423db1ffd9e7@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0706141648540.25868@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <cda58cb80706150159j5c3d5b7p4293dc529d5ee97c@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0706151117180.3754@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <20070615132613.GA16133@linux-mips.org> <cda58cb80706150724i1cbbfd1aw51d23d18e35f6266@mail.gmail.com> <20070615143838.GA11094@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On 6/15/07, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:24:36PM +0200, Franck Bui-Huu wrote:

> Do you think it's possible to work out a common version of this
> calibration without to many hacks ? Or should we simply move the
> current generic one into the dec code and resolve this point later ?

I think that this will be pretty easy and only moderately timeconsuming.


Mind to send a patch that will do that ? ;)
--
              Franck

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>