[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200803132252.58101.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:52:57 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avorontsov@...mvista.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.25-rc5 1/2] gpiolib: dynamic gpio number allocation
On Thursday 13 March 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > Actually, I tried IDRs for a while and they broke platforms
> > > > which needed to initialize and use GPIOs early: before kmalloc
> > > > would work. A real PITA that was -- and slow too.
> > >
> > > If IDRs were slow, that linear search will be glacial.
> >
> > The slowness of IDRs was needing to use them for the
> > routine lookups ... versus the current array index,
> > which costs a fraction of an instruction cycle and
> > doesn't need separate locks.
> >
> > Or were you implying they should be used for something
> > other than mapping GPIO numbers to controllers/state?
>
> For dynamic allocation. There should be no need for lookups outside
> register/unregister.
So -- a secondary data structure used only for allocation?
With the primary one as it is now?
If allocation were a hotspot something like that might be
worth considering ... though such duplication is usually
error prone. But it's not; such allocation is a rarity.
> Where did the CONFIG_NR_GPIOS discussion disappear to?
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120545979527097&w=2
I could maybe see a CONFIG_NR_EXTRA_GPIOS.
--
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