On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>
>> > This change will cost ~25KB of memory, but it's worth the trade-off,
>> > as it removes a great deal of overhead. It means that instead
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > This change will cost ~25KB of memory, but it's worth the trade-off,
> > as it removes a great deal of overhead. It means that instead of only
> > allocating memory for the logical channels in
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> This change will cost ~25KB of memory, but it's worth the trade-off,
> as it removes a great deal of overhead. It means that instead of only
> allocating memory for the logical channels in use, it does so for all
> available ones, which is 32
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
This change will cost ~25KB of memory, but it's worth the trade-off,
as it removes a great deal of overhead. It means that instead of only
allocating memory for the logical channels in use, it does so for all
available
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
This change will cost ~25KB of memory, but it's worth the trade-off,
as it removes a great deal of overhead. It means that instead of only
allocating memory for the logical
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
This change will cost ~25KB of memory, but it's worth the trade-off,
as it removes a great deal of
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:11:55AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > This change will cost ~25KB of memory, but it's worth the trade-off,
> > as it removes a great deal of overhead. It means that instead of only
> > allocating memory for the logical channels in
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:11:55AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> This change will cost ~25KB of memory, but it's worth the trade-off,
> as it removes a great deal of overhead. It means that instead of only
> allocating memory for the logical channels in use, it does so for all
> available ones, which
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:11:55AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
This change will cost ~25KB of memory, but it's worth the trade-off,
as it removes a great deal of overhead. It means that instead of only
allocating memory for the logical channels in use, it does so for all
available ones, which is
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:11:55AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
This change will cost ~25KB of memory, but it's worth the trade-off,
as it removes a great deal of overhead. It means that instead of only
allocating memory for the logical channels in use, it
This change will cost ~25KB of memory, but it's worth the trade-off,
as it removes a great deal of overhead. It means that instead of only
allocating memory for the logical channels in use, it does so for all
available ones, which is 32 per physical channel. However, this now
means we can remove
This change will cost ~25KB of memory, but it's worth the trade-off,
as it removes a great deal of overhead. It means that instead of only
allocating memory for the logical channels in use, it does so for all
available ones, which is 32 per physical channel. However, this now
means we can remove
12 matches
Mail list logo
