[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150520182955.GR31753@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 11:29:55 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Ankit Gupta <ankgupta@...eaurora.org>
Cc: gavidov@...eaurora.org, sdharia@...eaurora.org,
mlocke@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, ivan.ivanov@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, svarbanov@...sol.com,
galak@...eaurora.org, agross@...eaurora.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spmi: add command tracepoints for SPMI
On 05/20, Ankit Gupta wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2015 17:36:41 -0700
> Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> > On 05/18/15 14:51, Ankit Gupta wrote:
> > > +
> > > +TRACE_EVENT(spmi_read_end,
> > > + TP_PROTO(u8 opcode, u8 sid, u16 addr, int ret, u8 len,
> >
> > Should "len" be size_t instead of u8? It would at least match the
> > implementation of spmi_controller::read_cmd(). Same comment for the
> > write side.
> >
> > -Stephen
>
> I see no reason to spend to 4-8 bytes when spmi spec allows for maximum
> buffer size of 16. Do you suggest changing the API of read_cmd()?
> >
Is that a maximum buffer size of 16 bytes? I'd prefer consistency
with the API that's being traced, that's all. Changing it to u8
to save a few bytes probably doesn't make any difference if the
architecture passes function arguments in CPU registers which are
32 or 64 bits wide or if the function can be inlined enough by
the compiler to where the len parameter is kept in a register.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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