| Message ID | 20230613085054.10976-3-raag.jadav@intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Minor improvements for Intel pinctrl | expand |
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 02:20:53PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > Utilize a temporary variable for common shift operation > in ->irq_set_type() hook and improve readability. > While at it, simplify if-else-if chain and save a few bytes. > > add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/1 up/down: 0/-16 (-16) > Function old new delta > intel_gpio_irq_type 317 301 -16 > Total: Before=10469, After=10453, chg -0.15% ... > value = readl(reg); > - > value &= ~(PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_MASK | PADCFG0_RXINV); > > if ((type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) { > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH; > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING) { > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > - value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING) { > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_MASK) { > - if (type & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) > - value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_LEVEL; > } else { > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED; > } > > + if (type == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING || type == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) > + value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; > + > + value |= rxevcfg << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > writel(value, reg); Looking at this I realized that entire temporary variable assignments can be done outside of spin lock. You probably would need another one for keeping rxinv value. Will it give us any memory reduction in comparison to the current code?
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 02:20:53PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > > Utilize a temporary variable for common shift operation in > > ->irq_set_type() hook and improve readability. > > While at it, simplify if-else-if chain and save a few bytes. > > > > add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/1 up/down: 0/-16 (-16) > > Function old new delta > > intel_gpio_irq_type 317 301 -16 > > Total: Before=10469, After=10453, chg -0.15% > > ... > > > value = readl(reg); > > - > > value &= ~(PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_MASK | PADCFG0_RXINV); > > > > if ((type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) { > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH << > PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH; > > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING) { > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE << > PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; > > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; > > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING) { > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE << > PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; > > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_MASK) { > > - if (type & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; > > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_LEVEL; > > } else { > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED << > PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED; > > } > > > > + if (type == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING || type == > IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) > > + value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; > > + > > + value |= rxevcfg << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > writel(value, reg); > > Looking at this I realized that entire temporary variable assignments can be > done outside of spin lock. You probably would need another one for keeping > rxinv value. Something like this? u32 value, rxevcfg; u32 rxinv = 0; if ((type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) { rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH; } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING) { rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING) { rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_MASK) { rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_LEVEL; } else { rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED; } if (type == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING || type == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) rxinv = PADCFG0_RXINV; raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags); intel_gpio_set_gpio_mode(reg); value = readl(reg); value &= ~(PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_MASK | PADCFG0_RXINV); value |= rxinv; value |= rxevcfg << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; writel(value, reg); > Will it give us any memory reduction in comparison to the current code? add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 1/0 up/down: 4/0 (4) Function old new delta intel_gpio_irq_type 317 321 +4 Total: Before=10469, After=10473, chg +0.04% Unfortunately gcc doesn't seem to consider this as best of the sequence, and I'm not entirely sure why.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 09:48:12AM +0000, Jadav, Raag wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 02:20:53PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > > > Utilize a temporary variable for common shift operation in > > > ->irq_set_type() hook and improve readability. > > > While at it, simplify if-else-if chain and save a few bytes. > > > > > > add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/1 up/down: 0/-16 (-16) > > > Function old new delta > > > intel_gpio_irq_type 317 301 -16 > > > Total: Before=10469, After=10453, chg -0.15% > > > > ... > > > > > value = readl(reg); > > > - > > > value &= ~(PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_MASK | PADCFG0_RXINV); > > > > > > if ((type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) { > > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH << > > PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH; > > > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING) { > > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE << > > PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; > > > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; > > > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING) { > > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE << > > PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; > > > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_MASK) { > > > - if (type & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) > > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; > > > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_LEVEL; > > > } else { > > > - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED << > > PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > > + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED; > > > } > > > > > > + if (type == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING || type == > > IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) > > > + value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; > > > + > > > + value |= rxevcfg << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > > writel(value, reg); > > > > Looking at this I realized that entire temporary variable assignments can be > > done outside of spin lock. You probably would need another one for keeping > > rxinv value. > > Something like this? > > u32 value, rxevcfg; > u32 rxinv = 0; > > if ((type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) { > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH; > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING) { > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING) { > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_MASK) { > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_LEVEL; > } else { > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED; > } > > if (type == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING || type == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) > rxinv = PADCFG0_RXINV; > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags); > > intel_gpio_set_gpio_mode(reg); > > value = readl(reg); > > value &= ~(PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_MASK | PADCFG0_RXINV); > value |= rxinv; > value |= rxevcfg << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > writel(value, reg); This one looks better. > > Will it give us any memory reduction in comparison to the current code? > > add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 1/0 up/down: 4/0 (4) > Function old new delta > intel_gpio_irq_type 317 321 +4 > Total: Before=10469, After=10473, chg +0.04% > > Unfortunately gcc doesn't seem to consider this as best of the sequence, > and I'm not entirely sure why. It's fine as is, readability counts more than few bytes here.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 12:55:17PM +0300, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 09:48:12AM +0000, Jadav, Raag wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 02:20:53PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: ... > > > Looking at this I realized that entire temporary variable assignments can be > > > done outside of spin lock. You probably would need another one for keeping > > > rxinv value. > > > > Something like this? Almost, see below. > > u32 value, rxevcfg; > > u32 rxinv = 0; No assignment here. u32 rxinv, rxevcfg; u32 value; > > if ((type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) { > > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH; > > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING) { > > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; > > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING) { > > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; > > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_MASK) { > > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_LEVEL; > > } else { > > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED; > > } Now, if it's fully included in the diff (even with --patience parameter), then you may drop {}. > > if (type == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING || type == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) > > rxinv = PADCFG0_RXINV; else rxinv = 0; > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags); > > > > intel_gpio_set_gpio_mode(reg); > > > > value = readl(reg); > > > > value &= ~(PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_MASK | PADCFG0_RXINV); > > value |= rxinv; > > value |= rxevcfg << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; And I would rewrite these to the standard patterns: value = (value & ~PADCFG0_RXINV) | rxinv; value = (value & ~PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_MASK) | (rxevcfg << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT); And looking at this, perhaps do shift also outside the lock: } else { rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED; } rxevcfg <<= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; But, taking into account scope of the _RXEVCFG_*, I would add shift directly to the definitions and kill that SHIFT entirely: #define PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_LEVEL (0 << 25) #define PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE (1 << 25) #define PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED (2 << 25) #define PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH (3 << 25) ... value = (value & ~PADCFG0_RXINV) | rxinv; value = (value & ~PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_MASK) | rxevcfg; Try that one and look if it looks better. It might even save bytes after all. > > writel(value, reg); > > This one looks better. > > > > Will it give us any memory reduction in comparison to the current code? > > > > add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 1/0 up/down: 4/0 (4) > > Function old new delta > > intel_gpio_irq_type 317 321 +4 > > Total: Before=10469, After=10473, chg +0.04% > > > > Unfortunately gcc doesn't seem to consider this as best of the sequence, > > and I'm not entirely sure why. > > It's fine as is, readability counts more than few bytes here.
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 12:55:17PM +0300, > mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 09:48:12AM +0000, Jadav, Raag wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 02:20:53PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > > ... > > > > > Looking at this I realized that entire temporary variable > > > > assignments can be done outside of spin lock. You probably would > > > > need another one for keeping rxinv value. > > > > > > Something like this? > > Almost, see below. > > > > u32 value, rxevcfg; > > > u32 rxinv = 0; > > No assignment here. > > u32 rxinv, rxevcfg; > u32 value; > > > > if ((type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) { > > > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH; > > > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING) { > > > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; > > > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING) { > > > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; > > > } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_MASK) { > > > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_LEVEL; > > > } else { > > > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED; > > > } > > Now, if it's fully included in the diff (even with --patience parameter), then > you may drop {}. > > > > if (type == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING || type == > IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) > > > rxinv = PADCFG0_RXINV; > > else > rxinv = 0; > > > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags); > > > > > > intel_gpio_set_gpio_mode(reg); > > > > > > value = readl(reg); > > > > > > value &= ~(PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_MASK | PADCFG0_RXINV); > > > value |= rxinv; > > > value |= rxevcfg << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > And I would rewrite these to the standard patterns: > > value = (value & ~PADCFG0_RXINV) | rxinv; > value = (value & ~PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_MASK) | (rxevcfg << > PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT); > > And looking at this, perhaps do shift also outside the lock: > > } else { > rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED; > } > rxevcfg <<= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; > > But, taking into account scope of the _RXEVCFG_*, I would add shift directly > to the definitions and kill that SHIFT entirely: > > #define PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_LEVEL (0 << 25) > #define PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE (1 << 25) > #define PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED (2 << 25) > #define PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH (3 << 25) > > ... > > value = (value & ~PADCFG0_RXINV) | rxinv; > value = (value & ~PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_MASK) | rxevcfg; > > Try that one and look if it looks better. It might even save bytes after all. Should I add all of this in original patch or send this as a separate patch on top this series?
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 11:08:38AM +0000, Jadav, Raag wrote: ... > Should I add all of this in original patch or send this as a separate patch > on top this series? Always base the changes on the respective subsystem tree, don't forget to use --base when formatting patch with Git tools. Then send it separately. The 3rd patch in the series is questionable to me. I would like to look into it later on separately. (The first implies that there is no changes as per this series in that function).
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c index e8adf2580321..3f78066b1837 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c @@ -1128,8 +1128,8 @@ static int intel_gpio_irq_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int type) struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl = gpiochip_get_data(gc); unsigned int pin = intel_gpio_to_pin(pctrl, irqd_to_hwirq(d), NULL, NULL); unsigned long flags; + u32 value, rxevcfg; void __iomem *reg; - u32 value; reg = intel_get_padcfg(pctrl, pin, PADCFG0); if (!reg) @@ -1150,23 +1150,24 @@ static int intel_gpio_irq_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int type) intel_gpio_set_gpio_mode(reg); value = readl(reg); - value &= ~(PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_MASK | PADCFG0_RXINV); if ((type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH) { - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE_BOTH; } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING) { - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; - value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING) { - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_EDGE; } else if (type & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_MASK) { - if (type & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) - value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_LEVEL; } else { - value |= PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; + rxevcfg = PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_DISABLED; } + if (type == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING || type == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) + value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; + + value |= rxevcfg << PADCFG0_RXEVCFG_SHIFT; writel(value, reg); if (type & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH)
Utilize a temporary variable for common shift operation in ->irq_set_type() hook and improve readability. While at it, simplify if-else-if chain and save a few bytes. add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/1 up/down: 0/-16 (-16) Function old new delta intel_gpio_irq_type 317 301 -16 Total: Before=10469, After=10453, chg -0.15% Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com> --- drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c | 19 ++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)