[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:45:30 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Thomas Petazzoni' <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>
CC: "nicolas.ferre@...el.com" <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"soren.brinkmann@...inx.com" <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/1] net/macb: add TX multiqueue support for gem
From: Thomas Petazzoni
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:16:51 +0100, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
>
> > +#define GEM_ISR1 0x0400
> > +#define GEM_ISR2 0x0404
> > +#define GEM_ISR3 0x0408
> > +#define GEM_ISR4 0x040c
> > +#define GEM_ISR5 0x0410
> > +#define GEM_ISR6 0x0414
> > +#define GEM_ISR7 0x0418
>
> What about doing instead:
>
> #define GEM_ISR(q) ((q) == 0 ? MACB_ISR : 0x400 + (q) << 2)
>
> And ditto for all other registers, which will save a lot of boring repeated code.
It will probably add a lot of object code and, depending on how often
the registers are accesses, might have performance impact.
Having:
#define GEM_ISR(n) (0x400 + (n) << 4)
will save source code.
David
--
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