[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZIsrTNkW8BsUkeS9@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 18:16:28 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Jadav, Raag" <raag.jadav@...el.com>
Cc: "linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com" <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Sangannavar, Mallikarjunappa"
<mallikarjunappa.sangannavar@...el.com>,
"N, Pandith" <pandith.n@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] pinctrl: intel: refine ->irq_set_type() hook
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 03:05:42PM +0000, Jadav, Raag wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 01:35:19PM +0000, Jadav, Raag wrote:
...
> > > add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/1 up/down: 0/-9 (-9)
> > > Function old new delta
> > > intel_gpio_irq_type 317 308 -9
> > > Total: Before=10469, After=10460, chg -0.09%
> >
> > Do I understand correctly that this is your patch + suggested above?
>
> Yes, this is tested with gcc 7.5.0 with default -O2.
> I see some reordering in disassembly even with this simple change,
> and I'm not entirely sure what kind of weird tricks gcc is pulling here.
For me gcc (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0 gives the same, +4 bytes.
I am going to apply v4 with suggested tweaks.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists