[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50CF237E.5020409@antcom.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:51:58 +0100
From: Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>
To: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
CC: rmallon@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, w.sang@...gutronix.de,
grant.likely@...retlab.ca, daniel-gl@....net, sr@...x.de,
plagnioj@...osoft.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
highguy@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/6 v10] gpio: Add block GPIO
Hi Wolfgang,
On 12/17/2012 02:32 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
> And I guess Russell is right: If possible, we should write outputs
> simultaneously via ODSR (plus OWER/OWDR/OWSR) instead of separate set/clear.
>
> I wonder if we need to save/restore the state of OWSR at every write
> operation or if we need/can cache it. Assuming that block GPIO are the
> only code in the kernel that manipulates ODSR.
Can you please test the following:
+static void at91_gpiolib_set_block(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned long mask, unsigned long val)
+{
+ struct at91_gpio_chip *at91_gpio = to_at91_gpio_chip(chip);
+ void __iomem *pio = at91_gpio->regbase;
+
+ __raw_writel(~mask, pio + PIO_OWDR);
+ __raw_writel(mask, pio + PIO_OWER);
+ __raw_writel(val, pio + PIO_ODSR);
+}
Would caching OWSR be a significant speedup here?
Thanks in advance,
Roland
--
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