[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdXOx2MFDnRm2dxVTE9tFfAud595huEVagnTd8RKp3yQsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:13:14 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: Julian Vetter <julian@...er-limits.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sh: Remove IO memcpy and memset from sh code
Hi Adrian,
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 at 09:44, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-01-28 at 11:13 +0100, Julian Vetter wrote:
> > Remove IO memcpy and memset from sh specific code and fall back to the
> > new implementations from lib/iomem_copy.c. They use word accesses if the
> > buffers are aligned and only fall back to byte accesses for potentially
> > unaligned parts of a buffer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Julian Vetter <julian@...er-limits.org>
> > ---
> > Changes for V2:
> > - Removed also SH4 specific memcpy_fromio code
> I'm not sure that I understand the motivation to remove hand-optimized sh4 assembler
> code for memset and drop it in favor of potentially slower generic C code. What is
> the reasoning behind this?
See Arnd's feedback on v1
https://lore.kernel.org/all/ffe019a1-11b4-4ad7-bbe2-8ef3e01ffeb0@app.fastmail.com
> Also, it seems that this patch would make your other patch
>
> "sh: Remove memset_io from sh specific code"
>
> obsolete.
Yeah, that should have been mentioned under the ---.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists