From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0133.outbound.protection.outlook.com [157.56.110.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 922F31A024F for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 03:48:25 +1100 (AEDT) Message-ID: <1444150089.5336.283.camel@freescale.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/25] powerpc/8xx: also use r3 in the ITLB miss in all situations From: Scott Wood To: Christophe Leroy CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , , Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:48:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: <5613D6C5.1030100@c-s.fr> References: <94728e239cad2224383db7ddc1c57df7d11561eb.1442939410.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> <20150929000039.GG6161@home.buserror.net> <5613D6C5.1030100@c-s.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 16:12 +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote: > Le 29/09/2015 02:00, Scott Wood a écrit : > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 06:50:54PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > We are spending between 40 and 160 cycles with a mean of 65 cycles > > > in the TLB handling routines (measured with mftbl) so make it more > > > simple althought it adds one instruction > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy > > > --- > > > No change in v2 > > > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/head_8xx.S | 15 ++++----------- > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > Why is this a separate patch from 1/25? > > > > Same comments as on that patch. > > > > > Just because here there is no real need behind the simplification of the > code, whereas the first one was a pre-requisite for the following patch. > Should I merge them together anyway ? If there's no real need, why do it? It's not really a major readability enhancement... -Scott