[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2RsCXq7L6w5K+KmhP1Q2b1=SjnG2Xws2w232vmyj=yEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:39:04 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pierre-Yves MORDRET <pierre-yves.mordret@...com>,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
"M'boumba Cedric Madianga" <cedric.madianga@...il.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: stm32-mdma: avoid 64-bit division
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Benjamin Gaignard
<benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org> wrote:
> 2017-10-11 16:01 GMT+02:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>:
>
>> @@ -398,6 +400,9 @@ static enum dma_slave_buswidth stm32_mdma_get_max_width(u32 buf_len, u32 tlen)
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> + if (addr % max_width)
>> + max_width = DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_1_BYTE;
>> +
>
> I'm only half-convince by the implicite 32 bits cast done into
> function prototype.
> If we keep using dma_addr_t and use do_div() instead of %
> does compiler can still optimize the code ?
>
I wouldn't want to add a do_div() here, since it's guaranteed
not to be needed. Would you prefer an explicit cast here
and leave the argument as dma_addr_t?
We could also use a bit mask here like
if (addr & (max_width-1))
or we could combined it with the check above:
if ((((buf_len | addr) & (max_width - 1)) == 0) &&
(tlen >= max_width))
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists