Messages in this thread | | | From | "Jadav, Raag" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH v3 2/3] pinctrl: intel: refine ->irq_set_type() hook | Date | Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:48:12 +0000 |
| |
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 02:20:53PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > > Utilize a temporary variable for common shift operation in > > ->irq_set_type() hook and improve readability. > > While at it, simplify if-else-if chain and save a few bytes. > > > > add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/1 up/down: 0/-16 (-16) > > Function old new delta > > intel_gpio_irq_type 317 301 -16 > > Total: Before=10469, After=10453, chg -0.15% > > ... > > > value = readl(reg); > > - > > value &= ~(PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_MASK | PADCFG0_RXINV); > > > > if ((type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) { > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH << > PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH; > > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING) { > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE << > PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; > > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; > > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING) { > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE << > PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; > > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_MASK) { > > - if (type & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; > > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_LEVEL; > > } else { > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED << > PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED; > > } > > > > + if (type == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING || type == > IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) > > + value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; > > + > > + value |= rxevcfg << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > writel(value, reg); > > Looking at this I realized that entire temporary variable assignments can be > done outside of spin lock. You probably would need another one for keeping > rxinv value.
Something like this?
u32 value, rxevcfg; u32 rxinv = 0;
if ((type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) { rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH; } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING) { rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING) { rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_MASK) { rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_LEVEL; } else { rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED; }
if (type == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING || type == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) rxinv = PADCFG0_RXINV;
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags);
intel_gpio_set_gpio_mode(reg);
value = readl(reg);
value &= ~(PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_MASK | PADCFG0_RXINV); value |= rxinv; value |= rxevcfg << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT;
writel(value, reg);
> Will it give us any memory reduction in comparison to the current code?
add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 1/0 up/down: 4/0 (4) Function old new delta intel_gpio_irq_type 317 321 +4 Total: Before=10469, After=10473, chg +0.04%
Unfortunately gcc doesn't seem to consider this as best of the sequence, and I'm not entirely sure why.
| |