[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150424133124.GB11729@amd>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:31:24 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinh.linux@...il.com>,
Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Linux Fbdev development list <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
shc_work@...l.ru, linux@....linux.org.uk,
hsweeten@...ionengravers.com,
Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: simple framebuffer slower by factor of 20, on socfpga (arm)
platform
> > The difference is probably caused by memcpy() vs memcpy_fromio(). The
> > comment above memcpy_fromio() says "This needs to be optimized". I think
> > generally speaking memcpy_fromio() is correct for a framebuffer.
> >
> > That said, if the fb is in RAM, and is only written by the CPU, I think
> > a normal memcpy() for fb_memcpy_fromfb() should be fine...
>
> Could memcpy() cause alignment traps here if the fb pointer is unaligned
> and uncached?
Original commit did not comment on any failure, so I expect that is
not a problem here...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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