[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <555E3413.1020201@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:37:55 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Ankit Gupta <ankgupta@...eaurora.org>, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spmi: add command tracepoints for SPMI
On 05/20/15 11:58, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 2015 11:29:55 -0700
> Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> I believe the worry is about wasting bytes in the ring buffer if not
> necessary. But we do that in other tracepoints, so it's really up to
> the maintainer.
Ah ok. Fair enough.
--
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