From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Oct  7 20:26:34 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E109362;
 Mon,  7 Oct 2013 20:26:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ian@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21C04207A;
 Mon,  7 Oct 2013 20:26:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from c-24-8-230-52.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.230.52]
 helo=damnhippie.dyndns.org)
 by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
 (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ian@FreeBSD.org>)
 id 1VTHNr-000457-0O; Mon, 07 Oct 2013 20:26:27 +0000
Received: from [172.22.42.240] (revolution.hippie.lan [172.22.42.240])
 by damnhippie.dyndns.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r97KQNcE017584;
 Mon, 7 Oct 2013 14:26:23 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from ian@FreeBSD.org)
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Originating-IP: 24.8.230.52
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
 http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse
 reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1+SL+29gBFrnv96HWTdirAU
Subject: Re: Changes to UART ns8250
From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org>
To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmokZHvLpUvvD9s8ES0PT+E1oVfHWhdbiXF77osBOK2_Yqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALF_Tx=AwVnr0d75-K-yu97iVgmTJC7aaABoix73zHD+5eKJnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ-VmokZHvLpUvvD9s8ES0PT+E1oVfHWhdbiXF77osBOK2_Yqg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 14:26:23 -0600
Message-ID: <1381177583.1130.17.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Zbigniew Bodek <zbb@FreeBSD.org>,
 "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.org>,
 freebsd-current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>,
 "freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org" <freebsd-embedded@FreeBSD.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor <freebsd-arm.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arm>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arm-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arm>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arm-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arm-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 20:26:34 -0000

On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 13:15 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> You should add:
> 
> *[snip]
> * a DELAY(1) or something.
> 

Why?  Why oh why do people write 
  
 while (!read_some_status_register())
    DELAY(n);

when DELAY() is implemented as, roughly:

  while (read_some_counter_register() < something)
     continue;

The whole point of DELAY() is to busy-wait.  

What might be nice is some function that we can call in such a loop such
as cpu_busywait(), so that when running in an emulated or virtualized
environment the emulator or hypervisor could use that as a hint to do
something smart.

-- Ian