Dear Wolfgang,
On Thursday 09 June 2011 03:11 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Aneesh V,
In message4DEF62A6.7060706@ti.com you wrote:
I still don't think this is the 'right' solution for my problem. I don't like the fact that clrsetbits_le32() introduces a lot of un-necessary 'volatile's.
Well, with this argument you would also have to refuse using readl() and writel() and all other I/O accessor macros. The only place where volatile is used is in the __arch_get*() and __arch_put*() macros, and ther eit is supposed to be ok.
Yes, it's about the 'efficiency'. May be it doesn't count in some cases. But, may be it counts in some other cases. Basically, I don't like to sacrifice 'efficiency' unless the cost for achieving it is very
Try and show me a single case where you see a measurable difference in performance.
If you still insist, I can use clrsetbits_le32() in the interest of getting this to a closure.
Please do. Thanks.
As I start re-working on my patches I realize that there is no alternative to get_bit_field(). clrsetbits_le32() works as an alternative for set_bit_field() but I couldn't find anything in io.h that could replace get_bit_field(). The only option I seem to have is to mask and shift directly every time. Is that what you prefer over get_bit_field()?
best regards, Aneesh