On 20/09/11 21:28, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Graeme Russ,
>
> In message <4e786eba.5040...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>>
>> You'll laugh at this - the Intel High Performance Event Timers (HPET) are
>> defined to a resolution of femto-seconds and you end up with code in
>> get_timer() like:
>
> I hav
Dear Graeme Russ,
In message <4e786eba.5040...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> You'll laugh at this - the Intel High Performance Event Timers (HPET) are
> defined to a resolution of femto-seconds and you end up with code in
> get_timer() like:
I have to admit that I have never been able to laugh about
Hi Wolfgang,
On 08/09/11 07:14, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Che-liang Chiou,
>
> In message
> you
> wrote:
>>
>> So I guess we can agree that a 64-bit divider is feature that is nice
>> to have, and we should decide:
>> * Do we need a 64-64 bit divider or a 64-32 bit one?
>> * Do we write it i
Dear Che-liang Chiou,
In message
you wrote:
>
> So I guess we can agree that a 64-bit divider is feature that is nice
> to have, and we should decide:
> * Do we need a 64-64 bit divider or a 64-32 bit one?
> * Do we write it in C or assembly?
The situation is simple: there is no code in U-Boo
Dear Wolfgang,
I am convinced that a 64-64 bit divider (this patch) is not needed. Is
there any way that we could mark a patch "abandon"?
Regards,
Che-Liang
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Che-liang Chiou,
>
> In message
> you
> wrote:
>>
>> do_div() and lib/div64
Dear Che-liang Chiou,
In message
you wrote:
>
> do_div() and lib/div64.c of linux kernel has been ported to U-Boot
> since Oct, 2006 (this date is the earliest record that I can find; see
> commit 7b64fef3).
Indeed, and so far nobody ever needed the patch you submitted, so
please explain in de
Hi Marek,
do_div() and lib/div64.c of linux kernel has been ported to U-Boot
since Oct, 2006 (this date is the earliest record that I can find; see
commit 7b64fef3).
Regards,
Che-Liang
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:30:47 PM Che-liang Chi
On Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:30:47 PM Che-liang Chiou wrote:
> Hi Marek,
>
> I will abandon this patch and submit a new patch that is adapted from
> do_div() and lib64.c of the Linux kernel. Does this sound okay to you?
I'm not against it, but is it worth the effort? Like ... why do we need
Hi Marek,
I will abandon this patch and submit a new patch that is adapted from
do_div() and lib64.c of the Linux kernel. Does this sound okay to you?
Regards,
Che-Liang
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:09:18 PM Che-liang Chiou wrote:
>> Hi
Hi,
Thanks for the insightful comments. Here are my responses:
* Why don't I implement the divider in C?
It is not because I think it's performance critical (I haven't
benchmarked it yet), but because I have a probably wrong impression
that the divider has to be written in assembly --- all divide
On Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:09:18 PM Che-liang Chiou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the insightful comments. Here are my responses:
>
> * Why don't I implement the divider in C?
> It is not because I think it's performance critical (I haven't
> benchmarked it yet), but because I have a probab
Dear Che-Liang Chiou,
In message <1314787130-1043-1-git-send-email-clch...@chromium.org> you wrote:
> This patch adds a 64-64 bit divider that supports ARMv4 and above.
To summarize the misc feedback: Please explain in detail which
problem you are trying to fix. We see no need for this patch so
On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:30:25 Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 06:05:29 PM Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:33:59 Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 05:27:46 PM Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:11
On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 06:05:29 PM Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:33:59 Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 05:27:46 PM Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:11:00 Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 04:32
On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:33:59 Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 05:27:46 PM Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:11:00 Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 04:32:52 PM Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 06:38
On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 05:27:46 PM Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:11:00 Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 04:32:52 PM Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 06:38:50 Che-Liang Chiou wrote:
> > > > This patch adds a 64-64 bit div
On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:11:00 Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 04:32:52 PM Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 06:38:50 Che-Liang Chiou wrote:
> > > This patch adds a 64-64 bit divider that supports ARMv4 and above.
> >
> > why ? if you're doing 64 b
On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 04:32:52 PM Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 06:38:50 Che-Liang Chiou wrote:
> > This patch adds a 64-64 bit divider that supports ARMv4 and above.
>
> why ? if you're doing 64 bit divides, chances are you're doing something
> fundamentally wrong
On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 06:38:50 Che-Liang Chiou wrote:
> This patch adds a 64-64 bit divider that supports ARMv4 and above.
why ? if you're doing 64 bit divides, chances are you're doing something
fundamentally wrong. perhaps you should fix that instead.
this is also why we have the do_
On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:38:50 PM Che-Liang Chiou wrote:
> This patch adds a 64-64 bit divider that supports ARMv4 and above.
>
> Because clz (count leading zero) instruction is added until ARMv5, the
> divider implements a clz function for ARMv4 targets.
>
> The divider was tested with t
20 matches
Mail list logo
