On Wed 09 Oct 09:01 PDT 2019, Evan Green wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 6:58 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2019-10-08 16:55:04)
> > > On Tue 08 Oct 16:45 PDT 2019, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > @@ drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-slice.c
> > > >
> > > > static struct llcc_drv_data *drv_data = (void *) -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > > >
> > > > --static const struct regmap_config llcc_regmap_config = {
> > > > +-static struct regmap_config llcc_regmap_config = {
> > > > - .reg_bits = 32,
> > > > - .reg_stride = 4,
> > > > - .val_bits = 32,
> > > > @@ drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-slice.c: static struct regmap *qcom_llcc_init_mmio(struct
> > > > {
> > > > struct resource *res;
> > > > void __iomem *base;
> > > > -+ static struct regmap_config llcc_regmap_config = {
> > > > ++ struct regmap_config llcc_regmap_config = {
> > >
> > > Now that this isn't static I like the end result better. Not sure about
> > > the need for splitting it in two patches, but if Evan is happy I'll take
> > > it.
> > >
> >
> > Well I split it into bug fix and micro-optimization so backport choices
> > can be made. But yeah, I hope Evan is happy enough to provide a
> > reviewed-by tag!
>
> It's definitely better without the static local since it no longer has
> the cognitive trap, but I still don't really get why we're messing
> with the global v. local aspect of it. We're now inconsistent with
> every other caller of this function, and for what exactly? We've
> traded some data space for a call to memset() and some instructions. I
> would have thought anecdotally that memory was the cheaper thing (ie
> cpu speeds stopped increasing awhile ago, but memory is still getting
> cheaper).
>
The reason for making the structure local is because it's being modified
per instance, meaning it would still work as long as
qcom_llcc_init_mmio() is never called concurrently for two llcc
instances. But the correctness outweighs the performance degradation of
setting it up on the stack in my view.
Or am I missing something?
Regards,
Bjorn
> But either way it's correct, so really it's fine if you ignore me :)
> -Evan
