[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080313191747.dede60c3.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:17:47 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avorontsov@...mvista.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.25-rc5 1/2] gpiolib: dynamic gpio number allocation
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:53:58 -0800 David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
> On Thursday 13 March 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:18:58 -0800
> > David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday 13 March 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > > hm. I suppose that if someone want a huge number of GPIOs then we can
> > > > convert this to a bitmap or an IDR tree easily enough.
> > >
> > > 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.
Where did the CONFIG_NR_GPIOS discussion disappear to?
--
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