From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe Kleine-König)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [ARM] [IMX]: Removed superfluous checks for argument validity.
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:37:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100318083728.GB1369@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <acc484891003170334p133ee328y2d1b17533b672ac5@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:34:50PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> Hello Uwe,
>
> __clk_enable() and __clk_disable() are recursive with another arguments,
> that means it is hardly possible to remove the checks from them.
ah, at least the check for NULL cannot go away. However IS_ERR(clk)
should hardly matter, shouldn't it?
Maybe the generated code is more optimal when doing:
static void __clk_disable(struct clk *clk)
{
WARN_ON(!clk->usecount);
if (clk->parent)
__clk_disable(clk->parent);
if (clk->secondary)
__clk_disable(clk->secondary);
if (!(--clk->usecount) && clk->disable)
clk->disable(clk);
}
void clk_disable(struct clk *clk)
{
BUG_ON(clk == NULL || IS_ERR(clk));
mutex_lock(&clocks_mutex);
__clk_disable(clk);
mutex_unlock(&clocks_mutex);
}
So unless the compiler optimizes well, this reduces the calls of
__clk_disable from three to one for a clock without parent and
secondary.
While at it I wonder if it isn't more correct in __clk_disable to
disable the clock first and only then parent and secondary?!
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-18 8:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-17 7:11 [PATCH 1/2] [ARM] [IMX]: Removed superfluous checks for argument validity Vladimir Zapolskiy
2010-03-17 7:11 ` [PATCH 2/2] [ARM] [IMX]: Fix clock usecount counter from underflow Vladimir Zapolskiy
2010-03-17 9:20 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-03-17 10:15 ` javier Martin
2010-03-17 10:57 ` Vladimir Zapolskiy
2010-03-17 11:03 ` [PATCH 2/2 v2] [ARM] [IMX]: Fix clock use counter from underflow on multiple clk_disable() Vladimir Zapolskiy
2010-03-18 8:30 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-03-18 13:21 ` Vladimir Zapolskiy
2010-03-17 9:13 ` [PATCH 1/2] [ARM] [IMX]: Removed superfluous checks for argument validity Uwe Kleine-König
2010-03-17 10:34 ` Vladimir Zapolskiy
2010-03-18 8:37 ` Uwe Kleine-König [this message]
2010-03-18 13:07 ` Vladimir Zapolskiy
2010-03-18 13:27 ` [PATCH 1/2 v2] imx: optimize __clk_enable() and __clk_disable() functions Vladimir Zapolskiy
2010-03-18 14:23 ` Vladimir Zapolskiy
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=20100318083728.GB1369@pengutronix.de \
--to=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).