[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <499AD872.2060605@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:32:02 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
Cc: linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/18] ide: use ->tf_load in SELECT_DRIVE()
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>>>>>>There should be no functional changes caused by this patch.
>>>>>>>Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
>>>>>>>Index: b/drivers/ide/ide-iops.c
>>>>>>>===================================================================
>>>>>>>--- a/drivers/ide/ide-iops.c
>>>>>>>+++ b/drivers/ide/ide-iops.c
>>>>>>>@@ -88,11 +88,15 @@ void SELECT_DRIVE (ide_drive_t *drive)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> ide_hwif_t *hwif = drive->hwif;
>>>>>>> const struct ide_port_ops *port_ops = hwif->port_ops;
>>>>>>>+ ide_task_t task;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (port_ops && port_ops->selectproc)
>>>>>>> port_ops->selectproc(drive);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>- hwif->OUTB(drive->select.all, hwif->io_ports.device_addr);
>>>>>>>+ memset(&task, 0, sizeof(task));
>>>>>>>+ task.tf_flags = IDE_TFLAG_OUT_DEVICE;
>>>>>>>+
>>>>>>>+ drive->hwif->tf_load(drive, &task);
>>>>>> This actually doesn't seem like a bright idea to me, considering
>>>>>>that this gets called when starting every request. How will you look
>>>>>>at me adding the transport method for writing this register? :-)
>>>Please check profiles first -- it might not be worth it. [1]
>>>>>Convert SELECT_DRIVE() to use ->tf_load instead of ->OUTB.
>>>>> OTOH, adding such a "backdoor" to the taskfile doesn't seem very
>>>>>consistent... well, I'm not excited about the whole idea conversion to
>>>>>tf_{load|read}() -- it's not clear what exactly this bought us.
>>>This was explained some months ago already, so just to recall -- it was
>>>a part of a bigger work removing duplicated code and allowing abstraction
>>>of the ATA logic.
>>>Anyway this is not set in a stone so if you have proposal of a better
>>>approach please come forward with it.
>> Er... I think that the previous IN()/OUT() methods were better. Note
>>that we ended up using the local version of them in the dafault
>>ide_tf_{load}read}() anyway -- as Alan has pointed out it might be worth
> During ide_tf_{load,read}() addition I was a bit too optimistic about
> the possibility of the quick io{read,write}* conversion later...
>>splitting those into I/O and memory space versions... although given
>>general slowness of the I/O accesses, this is probably not going to win
>>much speed-wise.
> Maybe it would be worth to add ->tf_{inb,outb} to struct ide_tp_ops
> and convert default tp_ops to use them... OTOH we should reinvestigate
> the io{read,write}*() way first (maybe things have improved there)...
Yes, let's not be hasty here...
>>>> We at least could have saved on memset() -- tf_load() method ignores
>>>>fields other than tf_flags anyway...
>>>Unless it is huge performance win (unlikely) this is not a good idea as it would be a maintainance nightmare.
>>>->tf_load does only use cmd->tf_flags today but it might change one day
>>>and nobody will remember to audit all users that they pass a valid cmd...
>> It's just quite unbearable to see (especially for a long time
>>assembly coder) how a single register write is turning into *that*.
>>So, it still seems worth risking... :-)
> I see your point here. If SELECT_DRIVE() is performance sensitive we
> may just add another struct ide_tp_ops method for it...
Or we may finally teach selectproc() to also do that, turning it into
analog of libata's dev_select() method.
> Thanks,
> Bart
MBR, Sergei
--
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