From: "colorant" <colorant@163.com>
To: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>,
linux-omap-open-source@linux.omap.com
Subject: Re: Question About __REG32 marco
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:40:03 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <007d01c82bd7$0e1d8dc0$16110a0a@LongCheer.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 200711201326.06148.david-b@pacbell.net
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2023 bytes --]
Hi Dave
> On Tuesday 20 November 2007, colorant wrote:
>>
>> 1:
>> Why this macro need to be defined in this way ? Why borther to use an array ?
>> Can't we just use something like :
>>
>> *(volatile u32 *)(vaddr&~0x3) to get the value from vaddr with word align ?
>
> It generalizes __REG2() from arch-pxa/hardware.h ... where,
> as the comment notes, GCC would otherwise be incapable of
> generating decent code. It's possible GCC code generation
> has gotten smarter since then.
>
> Note that such macros are supposed to be used only with
> constant addresses, so code can treat registers as if they
> were global variables. Some people dislike that style;
> others find it more understandable than __raw_writel()
> style accessors.
>
> When it works right, driver code will have a register with
> the base address of a controller, and all accesses to that
> controller will use single word load/store instructions which
> embed the offsets of the various registers being accessed
> against that base register.
>
> The main alternative addressing styles were notably larger
> (I recall observing 1-2 KBytes per driver) and slower.
>
Yes, I can see that from the obj-code. Thanks.
>
>> 2:
>> Why this offset array need to be 4096 in size ? shouldn't it be 1024 ?
>> since it already point to a u32 value. and the >>2 make the macro never
>> got chance to reach a index great than 1024 !
>
> Look at the ARM instructions that are used. The address
> range may be 4KBytes, but the values are 4 bytes each.
> So the range of their indices is just 1K. (As implied
> by the comments adjacent to those macro definitions, which
> point out the use of LDR/STR for 8 and 32 bit values...)
>
This is what I am puzzled, since the index is just 1K, the following definition :
typedef struct { volatile u32 offset[4096]; } __regbase32;
shouldn't be:
typedef struct { volatile u32 offset[1024]; } __regbase32; ?
Raymond
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-21 0:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-20 10:39 Question About __REG32 marco colorant
2007-11-20 14:54 ` Woodruff, Richard
2007-11-20 21:26 ` David Brownell
2007-11-21 0:40 ` colorant [this message]
2007-11-21 0:46 ` David Brownell
2007-11-21 5:18 ` colorant
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='007d01c82bd7$0e1d8dc0$16110a0a@LongCheer.net' \
--to=colorant@163.com \
--cc=david-b@pacbell.net \
--cc=linux-omap-open-source@linux.omap.com \
/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