Hi,
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 04:31:13PM +0800, yalin wang wrote:
>
> i only submit the bit reverse patch for arm / arm64 arch,
yes, saw later git blaming it on you :)
> > Not for this case, but once measured on ARM, iirc, a 32-bit asm bit
> > reversal as compared to doing it in C was taking 1
> On Aug 22, 2015, at 15:53, Afzal Mohammed wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:01:41AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>
Possibly the patches are still good for x86 also, but that needs to be
proven.
>>> not exactly, because x86_64 don’t have hardware instruction to do
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 04:31:13PM +0800, yalin wang wrote:
i only submit the bit reverse patch for arm / arm64 arch,
yes, saw later git blaming it on you :)
Not for this case, but once measured on ARM, iirc, a 32-bit asm bit
reversal as compared to doing it in C was taking 1 cycle
On Aug 22, 2015, at 15:53, Afzal Mohammed afzal.mohd...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:01:41AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
Possibly the patches are still good for x86 also, but that needs to be
proven.
not exactly, because x86_64 don’t have hardware instruction to
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:01:41AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> >> Possibly the patches are still good for x86 also, but that needs to be
> >> proven.
> >>
> > not exactly, because x86_64 don’t have hardware instruction to do rbit OP,
> > i compile by test :
>
> For old drivers i386 may
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:01:41AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
Possibly the patches are still good for x86 also, but that needs to be
proven.
not exactly, because x86_64 don’t have hardware instruction to do rbit OP,
i compile by test :
For old drivers i386 may be more relevant
On 21/08/15 10:46, yalin wang wrote:
>>> i investigate on arm64 platforms:
>>
>> Ok. So is any arm64 platform actually using these devices? If these
>> devices are mostly used by 32bit x86 platforms, optimizing them for
>> arm64 doesn't make any sense.
>>
>> Possibly the patches are still good
> On Aug 21, 2015, at 14:41, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>
>
>
> On 20/08/15 14:30, yalin wang wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 20, 2015, at 19:02, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/08/15 13:12, yalin wang wrote:
This change to use swab32(bitrev32()) to implement reverse_order()
function,
On 20/08/15 14:30, yalin wang wrote:
>
>> On Aug 20, 2015, at 19:02, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/08/15 13:12, yalin wang wrote:
>>> This change to use swab32(bitrev32()) to implement reverse_order()
>>> function, have better performance on some platforms.
>>
>> Which platforms?
On 20/08/15 14:30, yalin wang wrote:
On Aug 20, 2015, at 19:02, Tomi Valkeinen tomi.valkei...@ti.com wrote:
On 10/08/15 13:12, yalin wang wrote:
This change to use swab32(bitrev32()) to implement reverse_order()
function, have better performance on some platforms.
Which platforms?
On Aug 21, 2015, at 14:41, Tomi Valkeinen tomi.valkei...@ti.com wrote:
On 20/08/15 14:30, yalin wang wrote:
On Aug 20, 2015, at 19:02, Tomi Valkeinen tomi.valkei...@ti.com wrote:
On 10/08/15 13:12, yalin wang wrote:
This change to use swab32(bitrev32()) to implement
On 21/08/15 10:46, yalin wang wrote:
i investigate on arm64 platforms:
Ok. So is any arm64 platform actually using these devices? If these
devices are mostly used by 32bit x86 platforms, optimizing them for
arm64 doesn't make any sense.
Possibly the patches are still good for x86 also,
> On Aug 20, 2015, at 19:02, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>
>
> On 10/08/15 13:12, yalin wang wrote:
>> This change to use swab32(bitrev32()) to implement reverse_order()
>> function, have better performance on some platforms.
>
> Which platforms? Presuming you tested this, roughly how much better
>
On 10/08/15 13:12, yalin wang wrote:
> This change to use swab32(bitrev32()) to implement reverse_order()
> function, have better performance on some platforms.
Which platforms? Presuming you tested this, roughly how much better
performance? If you didn't, how do you know it's faster?
>
On Aug 20, 2015, at 19:02, Tomi Valkeinen tomi.valkei...@ti.com wrote:
On 10/08/15 13:12, yalin wang wrote:
This change to use swab32(bitrev32()) to implement reverse_order()
function, have better performance on some platforms.
Which platforms? Presuming you tested this, roughly how
On 10/08/15 13:12, yalin wang wrote:
This change to use swab32(bitrev32()) to implement reverse_order()
function, have better performance on some platforms.
Which platforms? Presuming you tested this, roughly how much better
performance? If you didn't, how do you know it's faster?
This change to use swab32(bitrev32()) to implement reverse_order()
function, have better performance on some platforms.
Signed-off-by: yalin wang
---
drivers/video/fbdev/riva/fbdev.c | 19 ++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git
This change to use swab32(bitrev32()) to implement reverse_order()
function, have better performance on some platforms.
Signed-off-by: yalin wang yalin.wang2...@gmail.com
---
drivers/video/fbdev/riva/fbdev.c | 19 ++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git
18 matches
Mail list logo
