On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 12:26:46 +0100 "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024, at 12:24, Andre Przywara wrote: > > On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 12:11:36 +0100 "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> This used to be a 32-bit division. If the rate is never more than > >> 4.2GHz, clock could be turned back into 'unsigned long' to avoid > >> the expensive div_u64(). > > > > Wouldn't "div_u64(clock, 200)" solve this problem? > > Yes, that's why I mentioned it as the worse of the two obvious > solutions. ;-) Argh, should have cleaned my glasses first ;-) I guess I was put somehow put off by the word "expensive". While it's admittedly not trivial, I wonder if we care about the (hidden) complexity of that function? I mean it's neither core code nor something called frequently? I don't think we have any clock exceeding 3GHz at the moment, but it sounds fishy to rely on that. Cheers, Andre
