Re: [PATCH 20/32] Blackfin arch: dma_memcpy borken for > 64K
On 5/21/07, Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/21/07, Bryan Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -void *dma_memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t size)
> +void *_dma_memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t size)
Minor nitpick: the established naming convention is two underscores, not one.
that should be marked as static now actually since the function isnt
for use outside of this file
> +void *dma_memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t size)
> +{
> + size_t bulk;
> + size_t rest;
> + void * addr;
> +
> + bulk = (size >> 16) << 16;
I assume this is significantly faster on your architecture than:
bulk = size & ~0xUL;
which is more readable?
actually they should get optimized to the same thing
-mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 20/32] Blackfin arch: dma_memcpy borken for > 64K
Hi Bryan,
On 5/21/07, Bryan Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-void *dma_memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t size)
+void *_dma_memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t size)
Minor nitpick: the established naming convention is two underscores, not one.
+void *dma_memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t size)
+{
+ size_t bulk;
+ size_t rest;
+ void * addr;
+
+ bulk = (size >> 16) << 16;
I assume this is significantly faster on your architecture than:
bulk = size & ~0xUL;
which is more readable?
+ rest = size - bulk;
+ if (bulk)
+ _dma_memcpy(dest, src, bulk);
+ addr = _dma_memcpy(dest+bulk, src+bulk, rest);
+ return addr;
Does this work for 128K and up? Why?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 20/32] Blackfin arch: dma_memcpy borken for 64K
Hi Bryan,
On 5/21/07, Bryan Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-void *dma_memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t size)
+void *_dma_memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t size)
Minor nitpick: the established naming convention is two underscores, not one.
+void *dma_memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t size)
+{
+ size_t bulk;
+ size_t rest;
+ void * addr;
+
+ bulk = (size 16) 16;
I assume this is significantly faster on your architecture than:
bulk = size ~0xUL;
which is more readable?
+ rest = size - bulk;
+ if (bulk)
+ _dma_memcpy(dest, src, bulk);
+ addr = _dma_memcpy(dest+bulk, src+bulk, rest);
+ return addr;
Does this work for 128K and up? Why?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 20/32] Blackfin arch: dma_memcpy borken for 64K
On 5/21/07, Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/21/07, Bryan Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-void *dma_memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t size)
+void *_dma_memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t size)
Minor nitpick: the established naming convention is two underscores, not one.
that should be marked as static now actually since the function isnt
for use outside of this file
+void *dma_memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t size)
+{
+ size_t bulk;
+ size_t rest;
+ void * addr;
+
+ bulk = (size 16) 16;
I assume this is significantly faster on your architecture than:
bulk = size ~0xUL;
which is more readable?
actually they should get optimized to the same thing
-mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
