Hello Dmitry,
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:31:31PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> It is potentially more performant, and also shows intent more clearly,
> to use get_unaligned_le16() and put_unaligned_le16() when working with
> word data.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v3:
> - split put_unaligned_le16 into a separate patch
> - more call sites converted to get/put_unaligned_le16
>
> drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c | 12 +++++-------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c
> index f8708409b4dbc..7b4e2270eeda1 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> #include <linux/i2c.h>
> #include <linux/i2c-smbus.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <asm/unaligned.h>
>
> #include "i2c-core.h"
>
> @@ -370,8 +371,7 @@ static s32 i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, u16 addr,
> msg[1].len = 2;
> else {
> msg[0].len = 3;
> - msgbuf0[1] = data->word & 0xff;
> - msgbuf0[2] = data->word >> 8;
> + put_unaligned_le16(data->word, msgbuf0 + 1);
You claim this was clearer. For me it is not. With the explicit
assignment to msgbuf0[1] and msbbuf0[2] it is immediatly obvious to me
what happens. Even though the endianness is explicitly mentioned in
put_unaligned_le16, it takes a bit longer for me to understand what it
does and which part of data->word ends up in which byte.
Concerning the "potentially more performant" part: I wonder if this is
backed by numbers and if it is indeed benificial on some platforms if
this is a compiler problem.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
