Premi, Sanjeev wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Paulraj, Sandeep Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 9:02 PM To: Premi, Sanjeev; u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/2] omap3: Optimize detection of cpu revision
-----Original Message----- From: Premi, Sanjeev Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:48 PM To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Cc: Premi, Sanjeev Subject: [PATCH 0/2] omap3: Optimize detection of cpu revision
Each call to get_cpu_rev() leads to repetitive execution of code to detect the cpu revision.
This patchset ensures that mechanism to detect revision is not executed each time; instead a stored value is returned.
Since, revision info is needed in s_init(), the function to identify cpu revision needs to be called twice. At the moment, it is necessary/ unavoidable.
Sanjeev Premi (2): omap3: Identify the CPU in arch_cpu_init() omap3: Identify cpu in s_init()
cpu/arm_cortexa8/omap3/board.c | 2 + cpu/arm_cortexa8/omap3/sys_info.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------- include/asm-arm/arch-omap3/sys_proto.h | 3 +- include/configs/omap3_beagle.h | 2 + include/configs/omap3_evm.h | 2 + include/configs/omap3_overo.h | 2 + include/configs/omap3_pandora.h | 2 + include/configs/omap3_zoom1.h | 2 + include/configs/omap3_zoom2.h | 2 + 9 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
Sandeep, Tom,
Any comments on this series on your queue..
Sanjeev,
Wolfgang had some comments on this.
http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg26568.html
Did not find this mail in my inbox (may be reason to miss it earlier). Anyway, pasting it below to maintain context:
Dear "Premi, Sanjeev",
In message b85a65d85d7eb246be421b3fb0fbb59301e157a...@dbde02.ent.ti.com you wrote:
Also, I don't believe there is any complexity added as the contents of register are being read and saved in a global variable for use later.
Global variables are a bad thing if there is not really a good reason to hav ethem. Here it makes no sense to me. Execution time seems uncritical, and there is no kind of hardware wear involved with readin the registers, so like Tom I don't see a reason for this "optimization".
Tom, Denx,
As this patch stands, there isn't much code to optimize; but the change was meant as enabler for the next set of processors. The register and mechanism is same ...just interpretation will differ.
There is already a patchset for AM35x devices and there will new patches for OMAP36x.
Also, I believe faster execution time is always better; not just in critical sections of code. I possibly used "global" quite loosely; while responding earlier. The variable cpu_revision (being discussed) here is actually a 'static'. (See patch 1/2).
But, if we feel otherwise, I can revert to executing detection mechanism each time in the function.
However, are their any comments on remainder of the patch e.g. moving the cpu identification eary in the u-boot exectuion. The DPLL settings etc will depend upon the si identification.
I am not in favor of the patch. Please remove it and rework your patchset. Tom
Best regards, Sanjeev
Best regards, Wolfgang Denk
Best regards, Sanjeev
Best regards, Sanjeev _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot