On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > That is the way I had it originally before submission, and I > completely agree its reasonable to not incur additional cost at the > expense of having two separate read/write paths, and perhaps we should > only incur the extra cost on routines shared between > ath9k/ath9k/ath9k_htc. But -- is there really is a measurable cost > penalty? There's a measurable size penalty, at least. In fact, if you know what kind of IO op it is (ie "it's always MMIO"), you'd be even better using "writel()" directly, in which case it turns into just a single store on most architectures, and doesn't cause all the register save/restore of a function call. Linus _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
