linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@freescale.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, pantelis.antoniou@gmail.com,
	linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: merge include/asm/cputable.h
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:58:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200509150158.10511.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <06F93AF6-7AF8-4320-B9E3-CBF9EA333403@freescale.com>

On Middeweken 14 September 2005 21:11, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I not sure I understand what the introduction of the enum's gets us.
> 
It doesn't have to be an enum, it could just as well be a #define,
if we find that to be better in some way (maybe compile-time).

The general idea is to convert run-time checks into compile-time
checks in order to improve the running kernel. If you have

// start code
enum {
	FEATURE_1 = 1,
	FEATURE_2 = 2,
	PLATFORM_1 = FEATURE_1, 
	PLATFORM_2 = FEATURE_2, 
	PLATFORM_3 = FEATURE_1 | FEATURE_2,
	FEATURE_POSSIBLE = 
#ifdef CONFIG_PLATFORM_1
		PLATFORM_1 |
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_FEATURE_2
		PLATFORM_2 |
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_FEATURE_3
		PLATFORM_3 |
#endif
		0,
	FEATURE_ALWAYS =
#ifdef CONFIG_PLATFORM_1
		PLATFORM_1 &
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_PLATFORM_2
		PLATFORM_2 &
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_PLATFORM_3
		PLATFORM_3 &
#endif
		FEATURE_POSSIBLE,
};

static inline int have_feature(unsigned long feature)
{
    return (FEATURE_ALWAYS & feature) ||
           (FEATURE_POSSIBLE & runtime_feature & feature);
}

int foo();
int bar();
int main(void)
{
	if (have_feature(FEATURE_1))
		return foo();
	if (have_feature(FEATURE_2))
		return bar();
	return 0;
}
// end code

Then gcc will produce optimal object code for any combination
of CONFIG_PLATFORM_{1,2,3}. Of course I have to admit that the
header file is not exactly elegant ;-).

	Arnd <><

  reply	other threads:[~2005-09-14 23:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-09-08 21:02 cpu features testing 32 vs 64 bit Becky Bruce
2005-09-08 21:08 ` Pantelis Antoniou
2005-09-08 21:20   ` Kumar Gala
2005-09-08 21:48     ` Dan Malek
2005-09-08 22:02       ` Kumar Gala
2005-09-08 22:20         ` Dan Malek
2005-09-08 22:36         ` Arnd Bergmann
2005-09-09  0:08           ` David Gibson
2005-09-09  4:23           ` [PATCH] powerpc: merge include/asm/cputable.h Arnd Bergmann
2005-09-14 19:11             ` Kumar Gala
2005-09-14 23:58               ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2005-09-15 17:44                 ` Kumar Gala
2005-09-15 22:56                   ` Arnd Bergmann
2005-09-16  2:22                     ` Kumar Gala
2005-09-16  3:11                       ` Arnd Bergmann
2005-09-16 21:40                         ` Kumar Gala
2005-09-17  0:36                           ` Arnd Bergmann
2005-09-09 22:19     ` cpu features testing 32 vs 64 bit Benjamin Herrenschmidt

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=200509150158.10511.arnd@arndb.de \
    --to=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=kumar.gala@freescale.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=pantelis.antoniou@gmail.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).