Dear Aneesh V,
In message <4def62a6.7060...@ti.com> you wrote:
>
> I still don't think this is the 'right' solution for my problem. I don't
> like the fact that clrsetbits_le32() introduces a lot of un-necessary
> 'volatile's.
Well, with this argument you would also have to refuse using readl()
and writel() and all other I/O accessor macros. The only place where
volatile is used is in the __arch_get*() and __arch_put*() macros, and
ther eit is supposed to be ok.
> Yes, it's about the 'efficiency'. May be it doesn't count in some
> cases. But, may be it counts in some other cases. Basically, I don't
> like to sacrifice 'efficiency' unless the cost for achieving it is very
Try and show me a single case where you see a measurable difference in
performance.
> If you still insist, I can use clrsetbits_le32() in the interest
> of getting this to a closure.
Please do. Thanks.
> We have a set of powerful macros designed for bit-field accesses in IO
> egisters.
>
> But, what I am looking for is a set of macros for bit-field operations
> on C integer variables without the un-necessary overhead of IO register
> accesses. I am looking for missing APIs in bitops.h not anything from
> io.h
All the overhead we have is a few memory barriers. Can you measure
any difference in performance?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes.
-- Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, UTCS
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
