From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>,
Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] [ARM] Translate delay.S into (mostly) C
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 13:24:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CACDB05.5060308@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1286393743.22265.129.camel@m0nster>
On 10/06/2010 12:35 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> Is it possible to do all this in assembly ? Can't you have the default
> implementation using this assembly with different function names, then
> just set the assembly function names in C code someplace?
Sure we could do that. I went this route because adding the timer based
delay code was a copy paste instead of a copy translate. Actually, after
adding the set_delay_fn code __const_udelay and __delay aren't inlined
into __udelay anymore so we're back to the noinline behavior except
we're missing interleaving.
Finally, I thought it would be clearer what was going on if it was in C
as opposed to assembly. How bad is a branch as opposed to fall through.
And more importantly, how bad is a push/pop?
00000000 <delay_loop>:
0: e2500001 subs r0, r0, #1 ; 0x1
4: 8afffffd bhi 0 <delay_loop>
8: e12fff1e bx lr
0000000c <set_delay_fn>:
c: e59f3004 ldr r3, [pc, #4] ; 18 <set_delay_fn+0xc>
10: e5830000 str r0, [r3]
14: e12fff1e bx lr
18: 00000000 .word 0x00000000
0000001c <__delay>:
1c: e92d4010 push {r4, lr}
20: e59f3008 ldr r3, [pc, #8] ; 30 <__delay+0x14>
24: e1a0e00f mov lr, pc
28: e593f000 ldr pc, [r3]
2c: e8bd8010 pop {r4, pc}
30: 00000000 .word 0x00000000
00000034 <__const_udelay>:
34: e59f3018 ldr r3, [pc, #24] ; 54 <__const_udelay+0x20>
38: e1a00720 lsr r0, r0, #14
3c: e5933000 ldr r3, [r3]
40: e1a03523 lsr r3, r3, #10
44: e0000093 mul r0, r3, r0
48: e1b00320 lsrs r0, r0, #6
4c: 012fff1e bxeq lr
50: eafffffe b 1c <__delay>
54: 00000000 .word 0x00000000
00000058 <__udelay>:
58: e59f3004 ldr r3, [pc, #4] ; 64 <__udelay+0xc>
5c: e0000093 mul r0, r3, r0
60: eafffffe b 34 <__const_udelay>
64: 0001a36e .word 0x0001a36e
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [ARM] Translate delay.S into (mostly) C
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 13:24:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CACDB05.5060308@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1286393743.22265.129.camel@m0nster>
On 10/06/2010 12:35 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> Is it possible to do all this in assembly ? Can't you have the default
> implementation using this assembly with different function names, then
> just set the assembly function names in C code someplace?
Sure we could do that. I went this route because adding the timer based
delay code was a copy paste instead of a copy translate. Actually, after
adding the set_delay_fn code __const_udelay and __delay aren't inlined
into __udelay anymore so we're back to the noinline behavior except
we're missing interleaving.
Finally, I thought it would be clearer what was going on if it was in C
as opposed to assembly. How bad is a branch as opposed to fall through.
And more importantly, how bad is a push/pop?
00000000 <delay_loop>:
0: e2500001 subs r0, r0, #1 ; 0x1
4: 8afffffd bhi 0 <delay_loop>
8: e12fff1e bx lr
0000000c <set_delay_fn>:
c: e59f3004 ldr r3, [pc, #4] ; 18 <set_delay_fn+0xc>
10: e5830000 str r0, [r3]
14: e12fff1e bx lr
18: 00000000 .word 0x00000000
0000001c <__delay>:
1c: e92d4010 push {r4, lr}
20: e59f3008 ldr r3, [pc, #8] ; 30 <__delay+0x14>
24: e1a0e00f mov lr, pc
28: e593f000 ldr pc, [r3]
2c: e8bd8010 pop {r4, pc}
30: 00000000 .word 0x00000000
00000034 <__const_udelay>:
34: e59f3018 ldr r3, [pc, #24] ; 54 <__const_udelay+0x20>
38: e1a00720 lsr r0, r0, #14
3c: e5933000 ldr r3, [r3]
40: e1a03523 lsr r3, r3, #10
44: e0000093 mul r0, r3, r0
48: e1b00320 lsrs r0, r0, #6
4c: 012fff1e bxeq lr
50: eafffffe b 1c <__delay>
54: 00000000 .word 0x00000000
00000058 <__udelay>:
58: e59f3004 ldr r3, [pc, #4] ; 64 <__udelay+0xc>
5c: e0000093 mul r0, r3, r0
60: eafffffe b 34 <__const_udelay>
64: 0001a36e .word 0x0001a36e
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-06 20:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-28 3:33 [PATCH 0/3] Fixing udelay() on SMP (and non-SMP too) Stephen Boyd
2010-09-28 3:33 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-09-28 3:33 ` [PATCH 1/3] [ARM] Translate delay.S into (mostly) C Stephen Boyd
2010-09-28 3:33 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-10-05 17:22 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-05 17:22 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-06 3:36 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-10-06 3:36 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-10-06 13:38 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-06 13:38 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-06 14:26 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-10-06 14:26 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-10-06 18:30 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-10-06 18:30 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-10-06 19:35 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-06 19:35 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-06 20:05 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-10-06 20:05 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-10-08 0:11 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-10-08 0:11 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-10-08 1:12 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-10-08 1:12 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-10-06 20:24 ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2010-10-06 20:24 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-09-28 3:33 ` [PATCH 2/3] [ARM] Allow machines to override __delay() Stephen Boyd
2010-09-28 3:33 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-10-05 17:29 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-05 17:29 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-06 3:36 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-10-06 3:36 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-09-28 3:33 ` [PATCH 3/3] [ARM] Implement a timer based __delay() loop Stephen Boyd
2010-09-28 3:33 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-10-05 17:38 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-05 17:38 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-06 3:36 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-10-06 3:36 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-10-06 13:44 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-06 13:44 ` Daniel Walker
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-09-07 18:23 [PATCH 0/3] Fixing udelay() on SMP (and non-SMP too) Stephen Boyd
2010-09-07 18:23 ` [PATCH 1/3] [ARM] Translate delay.S into (mostly) C Stephen Boyd
2010-09-07 18:23 ` Stephen Boyd
2010-09-04 4:28 [PATCH 0/3] Fixing udelay() on SMP (and non-SMP too) Stephen Boyd
2010-09-04 4:28 ` [PATCH 1/3] [ARM] Translate delay.S into (mostly) C Stephen Boyd
2010-08-19 2:24 [PATCH 0/3] Fixing udelay() on SMP (and non-SMP too) Stephen Boyd
2010-08-19 2:24 ` [PATCH 1/3] [ARM] Translate delay.S into (mostly) C Stephen Boyd
2010-08-19 2:24 ` Stephen Boyd
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4CACDB05.5060308@codeaurora.org \
--to=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=ccross@android.com \
--cc=dwalker@codeaurora.org \
--cc=khilman@deeprootsystems.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=nico@fluxnic.net \
--cc=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
--cc=skannan@codeaurora.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.