[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VeMcv-hQViCANQARiNh0LwmugsDWk=MF1c5E3t7z5h02Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 16:25:20 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
Gareth Williams <gareth.williams.jx@...esas.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Georgy Vlasov <Georgy.Vlasov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
Ramil Zaripov <Ramil.Zaripov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Wan Ahmad Zainie <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@...el.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Clement Leger <cleger@...ray.eu>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/19] spi: dw: Use DMA max burst to set the request thresholds
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:53 PM Serge Semin
<Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru> wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:03:43PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:01:33PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 05:38:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 01:47:49PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
...
> > > > > struct dma_chan *txchan;
> > > > > + u32 txburst;
> > > > > struct dma_chan *rxchan;
> > > > > + u32 rxburst;
> > > >
> > > > Leave u32 together, it may be optimal on 64-bit architectures where ABIs require padding.
> > >
> > > It's not like anyone cared about padding in this structure in the first place)
> >
> > I think I have been caring (to some extend).
>
> Well, If you have then instead of asking to rearrange just two members (which
> by the way finely grouped by the Tx-Rx affiliation) why not sending a
> patch, which would refactor the whole structure so to be optimal for the x64
> platforms? I don't really see why this gets very important for you seeing
> Mark is Ok with this. My current commit follows the common driver design
> including the DW SSI data members grouping. On the second thought I'll leave
> it as is then.
Again same issue here. What is really easy to do for you here, will
become a burden and additional churn to anybody else.
So, why not to minimize it in the first place? Same with comma in
another patch. Sorry, I really don't get it.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists