[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200711132319.48821.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:19:47 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: "eric miao" <eric.y.miao@...il.com>
Cc: "Linux Kernel list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Felipe Balbi" <felipebalbi@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
"Bill Gatliff" <bgat@...lgatliff.com>,
"Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@...el.com>,
"Andrew Victor" <andrew@...people.com>,
"Tony Lindgren" <tony@...mide.com>,
"Jean Delvare" <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
"Kevin Hilman" <khilman@...sta.com>,
"Paul Mundt" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
"Ben Dooks" <ben@...nity.fluff.org>
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc 1/4] GPIO implementation framework
> > > struct gpio_desc {
> > > struct gpio_chip *chip;
> > > unsigned is_out:1;
> > > + unsigned requested:1;
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> > > + const char *requested_str;
> > > +#endif
> >
> > Note that this means (on typical 32-bit embedded hardware)
> > twelve bytes per GPIO, which if you assume 256 GPIOs means
> > an extra 3 KB static memory compared to the patch I sent.
Actually, 2K is a more accurate number -- ignore DEBUG_FS.
> Note this reduces the memory in gpio_chip, so it consumes almost same
> memory as the patch you sent.
No; the amount of space shaved from a typical (32-bit banks)
gpio_chip is *exactly* the cost of one gpio_desc: two words.
In one case, two bitmaps. In the other, a pointer, two bits,
and internal struct padding.
So unless each bank has only a single GPIO, this approach
does cost more memory. Both for the extra memory associated
with each gpio_chip that's used, and for unused gpio_desc.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, though it's always worth
avoiding bloat.
- Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists