[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120127163840.ff030c49.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:38:40 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Venu Byravarasu <vbyravarasu@...dia.com>
Cc: a.zummo@...ertech.it, rtc-linux@...glegroups.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: twl: optimize IRQ bit access
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:22:22 +0530
Venu Byravarasu <vbyravarasu@...dia.com> wrote:
> From: Venu Byravarasu <vbyravarasu@...dia.com>
>
> As TWL RTC driver is having a cached copy of enabled RTC interrupt bits
> in variable rtc_irq_bits, that can be checked before really setting
> or masking any of the interrupt bits.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-twl.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-twl.c
> @@ -176,6 +176,10 @@ static int set_rtc_irq_bit(unsigned char bit)
> unsigned char val;
> int ret;
>
> + /* if the bit is set, return from here */
> + if (rtc_irq_bits & bit)
> + return 0;
> +
> val = rtc_irq_bits | bit;
> val &= ~BIT_RTC_INTERRUPTS_REG_EVERY_M;
> ret = twl_rtc_write_u8(val, REG_RTC_INTERRUPTS_REG);
> @@ -193,6 +197,10 @@ static int mask_rtc_irq_bit(unsigned char bit)
> unsigned char val;
> int ret;
>
> + /* if the bit is clear, return from here */
> + if (!(rtc_irq_bits & bit))
> + return 0;
> +
> val = rtc_irq_bits & ~bit;
> ret = twl_rtc_write_u8(val, REG_RTC_INTERRUPTS_REG);
> if (ret == 0)
Are these functions called frequently enough to make this optimisation
significant?
I can see no locking protecting rtc_irq_bits from concurrent updaters.
Is this code as racy as it appears?
--
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