[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <mhng-13e1a533-81f1-47cc-8d1e-a4e5332600f4@palmer-si-x1c4>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:43:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
To: Jim Wilson <jimw@...ive.com>
CC: bjorn.topel@...il.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, davidlee@...ive.com,
daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] riscv: set HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 17:33:50 PST (-0800), Jim Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:21 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com> wrote:
>> Jim, would you be opposed to something like this?
>
> This looks OK to me.
OK, thanks. I'll send some patches around :)
>
>> + builtin_define_with_int_value ("__riscv_tune_misaligned_load_cost",
>> + riscv_tune_info->slow_unaligned_access ? 1024 : 1);
>> + builtin_define_with_int_value ("__riscv_tune_misaligned_store_cost",
>> + riscv_tune_info->slow_unaligned_access ? 1024 : 1);
>
> It would be nice to have a better way to compute these values, maybe
> an extra field in the tune structure, but we can always worry about
> that later when we need it.
I agree. I just went and designed the external interface first and hid the
ugliness here. The internal interfaces are easier to change :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists