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 <><
next prev parent 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).