[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201218204414.GG5333@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 20:44:14 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@...com>
Cc: Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@...dia.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
thierry.reding@...il.com, jonathanh@...dia.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
lukas@...ner.de, bbrezillon@...nel.org,
tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/9] spi: spi-mem: Mark dummy transfers by setting
dummy_data bit
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 08:41:02PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 12:49:38AM +0530, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> > Anyway, if the SPI maintainers think this is worth it, I won't object.
> This gets kind of circular, for me it's a question of if there's some
> meaningful benefit from using the feature vs the cost to support it and
> from the sounds of it we don't have numbers on the benefits from using
> it at present.
...although I do have to say looking at the implementation that the cost
seems low, it's just a flag set on an existing transfer. The only issue
is if we'd get more win from coalesing the entire transaction (or entire
transmit) into a single transfer that could be DMAed and/or requires
fewer trips through the stack which does make it seem like an unclear
tradeoff from the point of view of client drivers
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists