[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <39547002-74f3-66c4-93ce-9adf72841b8e@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 20:23:29 +0100
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Realtek linux nic maintainers <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] r8169: Load MAC address from device tree if present
On 25.01.2019 20:07, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> Andrew, for my understanding: What do you think is wrong with the
>> alignment requirement? It was introduced because we do a 32 bit access
>> to the start address of the array and want to avoid an unaligned access.
>
> Hi Heiner
>
> Because you are doing pointer aliasing, the compiler will by default
> generate bad code, doing unaligned access. Adding the attribute works
> around this. But it is just a work around. Since this is very slow
> path code, i would just avoid the pointer aliasing, write a bit more C
> code as Thierry suggested, and the optimiser will probably figure out
> what is going on and produce reasonable code.
>
> Also, in general, by avoiding pointer aliasing, you allow static code
> checkers to work better. They are more likely to discover buffer
> overruns, etc.
>
> Andrew
>
Thanks, good to know.
The following doesn't hurt us here, but things like this have to be
considered too. According to chip spec:
"The ID registers 0-5 are only permitted to write by 4-byte access.
Read access can be byte, word, or double word access."
Heiner
Powered by blists - more mailing lists