On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
>> I'm actually going to NAK this one. This is a hot path. Having a O(1)
>> lookup from gpio number to gpio desc is important. I know you want to be
>> rid of the gpio_desc table enti
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> I'm actually going to NAK this one. This is a hot path. Having a O(1)
> lookup from gpio number to gpio desc is important. I know you want to be
> rid of the gpio_desc table entirely, but in this case I think it is
> warranted. However, you can
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 01:29:31 +0900, Alexandre Courbot
wrote:
> Parse the list of chips to find the descriptor corresponding to a GPIO
> number instead of directly picking the entry of the global gpio_desc[]
> array, which is due to be removed.
>
> This turns the complexity of converting a GPIO n
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> Parse the list of chips to find the descriptor corresponding to a GPIO
> number instead of directly picking the entry of the global gpio_desc[]
> array, which is due to be removed.
>
> This turns the complexity of converting a GPIO number
Parse the list of chips to find the descriptor corresponding to a GPIO
number instead of directly picking the entry of the global gpio_desc[]
array, which is due to be removed.
This turns the complexity of converting a GPIO number into a descriptor
from O(1) to O(n) where n is the number of GPIO c
5 matches
Mail list logo