Dear Wolfgang, On Thursday 09 June 2011 03:11 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > 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.
As I start re-working on my patches I realize that there is no alternative to get_bit_field(). clrsetbits_le32() works as an alternative for set_bit_field() but I couldn't find anything in io.h that could replace get_bit_field(). The only option I seem to have is to mask and shift directly every time. Is that what you prefer over get_bit_field()? best regards, Aneesh _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
