> On Aug 22, 2015, at 15:53, Afzal Mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:01:41AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > >>>> Possibly the patches are still good for x86 also, but that needs to be >>>> proven. >>>> >>> not exactly, because x86_64 don’t have hardware instruction to do rbit OP, >>> i compile by test : >> >> For old drivers i386 may be more relevant than x86_64. > > It seems asm bit reversal is supported in Kernel on arm & arm64 only, > not sure whether any other arch even provide asm bit reversal > instruction. i only submit the bit reverse patch for arm / arm64 arch, i am not sure if there are some other arch also have hard ware bit reverse instructions, need arch maintainers to submit if their arch also have these hard ware instructions . :) > >> These kind of optimizations should have some real world measurements, > > Not for this case, but once measured on ARM, iirc, a 32-bit asm bit > reversal as compared to doing it in C was taking 1 cycle as opposed to > ~225 cycles!, of course writing optimized C could have made it fare > better, but still would reach no-way near asm bit reversal. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
