lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mtd: mtk: avoid warning in mtk_ecc_encode
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:25:17 +0200
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:

> On Friday 30 September 2016, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > + /* copy into possibly unaligned OOB region with actual length */
> > > + memcpy(data + bytes, eccdata, len);
> >
> > Is it better than
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < len; i += 4) {
> > u32 val = __raw_readl(ecc->regs + ECC_ENCPAR(i / 4));
> >
> > memcpy(data + bytes + i, &val, min(len, 4));
> > }
> >
> > I'm probably missing something, but what's the point of creating a
> > temporary buffer of 112 bytes on the stack since you'll have to copy
> > this data to the oob buffer at some point?
>
>
> I tried something like that first, but wasn't too happy with it for
> a number of small reasons:
>
> - __raw_readl in a driver is not usually the right API, __memcpy32_from_io
> uses it internally, but it's better for a driver not to rely on that,
> in case we need some barriers (which we may in factt need for other drivers).

I agree, even though calling something prefixed with __ (in this case,
__ioread32_copy()) sounds like a bad thing too :).

>
> - the min(len,4) expression is incorrect, fixing that makes it more complicated
> again

Sorry, it's min(len - i, 4), which is not that complicated :P.

>
> - I didn't like to call memcpy() multiple times, as that might get turned
> into an external function call (the compiler is free to optimize small
> memcpy calls or not).

Okay.

>
> I agree that he 112 byte buffer isn't ideal either, it just seemed to
> be the lesser annoyance.

How about we keep your approach, but put the buffer in the mtk_ecc
struct?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-01 11:26    [W:0.085 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site