Hi Geert,
On Thursday 05 March 2015 10:19:33 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h
> >> @@ -69,9 +69,10 @@ struct pinmux_func {
> >> };
> >>
> >> struct pinmux_cfg_reg {
> >> - unsigned long reg, reg_width, field_width;
> >> + unsigned long reg;
> >
> > How about making reg a u32 ? It won't make a difference in practice on
> > 32-bit systems, but it would be more explicit.
You might have missed this comment.
> > We could also save space by making reg a u16 and storing the register
> > offset only instead of the full address (assuming it can always fit in 16
> > bits, which should be checked). We'll also need to support 64-bit systems
> > at some point, and making reg a u64 would increase space waste.
>
> That would be more intrusive (and definitely needs to be in a separate
> patch), as reg is used here to store a physical register address, for
> conversion between physical and virtual addresses. I didn't want to go that
> far yet.
>
> u16 would indeed be nice, as it means reg, reg_width, and field_width
> would fit in one 32-bit word, which I hadn't realized. That means we can
> reduce each entry by 2 words instead of 1.
>
> For 64-bit that would still be suboptimal, as pointers are aligned to 8
> bytes, leading to gaps.
> Perhaps we do want __packed here, too? I don't think the performance drop of
> doing some unaligned accesses would be significant. This isn't a hot path.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
