From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932115AbbHUGla (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Aug 2015 02:41:30 -0400 Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:43538 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753829AbbHUGl1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Aug 2015 02:41:27 -0400 Message-ID: <55D6C812.6080400@ti.com> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:41:22 +0300 From: Tomi Valkeinen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yalin wang CC: , , , open list Subject: Re: [RFC] fbdev/riva:change to use generice function to implement reverse_order() References: <55D5B3A9.6040901@ti.com> <867D66CD-9A3B-4536-B537-8C065C85E497@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <867D66CD-9A3B-4536-B537-8C065C85E497@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tChqb8AStiWLuT8IQjTg4ELiGcg0wFtCu" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --tChqb8AStiWLuT8IQjTg4ELiGcg0wFtCu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 20/08/15 14:30, yalin wang wrote: >=20 >> On Aug 20, 2015, at 19:02, Tomi Valkeinen wrot= e: >> >> >> On 10/08/15 13:12, yalin wang wrote: >>> This change to use swab32(bitrev32()) to implement reverse_order() >>> function, have better performance on some platforms. >> >> Which platforms? Presuming you tested this, roughly how much better >> performance? If you didn't, how do you know it's faster? >=20 > i investigate on arm64 platforms: Ok. So is any arm64 platform actually using these devices? If these devices are mostly used by 32bit x86 platforms, optimizing them for arm64 doesn't make any sense. Possibly the patches are still good for x86 also, but that needs to be proven. Tomi --tChqb8AStiWLuT8IQjTg4ELiGcg0wFtCu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJV1sgSAAoJEPo9qoy8lh71dhYP/2qR04hEUYBHtJXo3MQe6Evs iCAoIrGgBw9YvSpXcRJ3JuB/WHbRqv4YtlSjyTf7YlChwxsQw0aJL5w//Cr0MnN5 tZS7uouF3GYN8yi7QYX5IYSwYVoscNxnO8nKcm/VSTDxRCB9Ui0q6iE1ey8wGCkP poSqswtJvaXAMWKvNF/qJc9ELhpkIHUn4WHCtu1HQo+eyBuPzWxXGzugEZG51kcj +hDJg98jp3jBWALLuGQypzeEq1KqbUFICXD4RocAwB1EwbS9fZg46FRKg90iEJYh EGKk7NLZ6puBziF/wdDze70zKOdY7pilqdlJ8/DtTP2SxbH7ai3E658EUCcOZZ8f Z/fZA0o0N+IFAl8RwxN5kv2c27VOD3OuJCG9BSoqU4L8e8YrXLRxTQU+Z3JWRjjM IZ/WYB2RxHOwRNjA4LlusoRhLBVZfzZFkIq2z2XNOe3L2EHT6NCttdumFmt5jDa1 KOXszYMA06Heiqo24GszN1igor0YplZZjJXnkdfksZLb6Aocb/LqwZEzus2g4N/S q+fC3DxkOQJfjvRt/U17HzURt5aE+tRNX4Eyn89eY2yVg1m8gKEsBDQO/2Sbl06P Ff67sQ9A0Z9EgX7UdBSmkX0HEwuLJr3aOzHY4TDXgmhNSp64yF+8RzdxVKQsDNAg 9sZSSXG+NzYaOrEfUEMX =0nVY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tChqb8AStiWLuT8IQjTg4ELiGcg0wFtCu-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomi Valkeinen Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:41:22 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] fbdev/riva:change to use generice function to implement reverse_order() Message-Id: <55D6C812.6080400@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="tChqb8AStiWLuT8IQjTg4ELiGcg0wFtCu" List-Id: References: <55D5B3A9.6040901@ti.com> <867D66CD-9A3B-4536-B537-8C065C85E497@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <867D66CD-9A3B-4536-B537-8C065C85E497@gmail.com> To: yalin wang Cc: adaplas@gmail.com, plagnioj@jcrosoft.com, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, open list --tChqb8AStiWLuT8IQjTg4ELiGcg0wFtCu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 20/08/15 14:30, yalin wang wrote: >=20 >> On Aug 20, 2015, at 19:02, Tomi Valkeinen wrot= e: >> >> >> On 10/08/15 13:12, yalin wang wrote: >>> This change to use swab32(bitrev32()) to implement reverse_order() >>> function, have better performance on some platforms. >> >> Which platforms? Presuming you tested this, roughly how much better >> performance? If you didn't, how do you know it's faster? >=20 > i investigate on arm64 platforms: Ok. So is any arm64 platform actually using these devices? If these devices are mostly used by 32bit x86 platforms, optimizing them for arm64 doesn't make any sense. Possibly the patches are still good for x86 also, but that needs to be proven. Tomi --tChqb8AStiWLuT8IQjTg4ELiGcg0wFtCu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJV1sgSAAoJEPo9qoy8lh71dhYP/2qR04hEUYBHtJXo3MQe6Evs iCAoIrGgBw9YvSpXcRJ3JuB/WHbRqv4YtlSjyTf7YlChwxsQw0aJL5w//Cr0MnN5 tZS7uouF3GYN8yi7QYX5IYSwYVoscNxnO8nKcm/VSTDxRCB9Ui0q6iE1ey8wGCkP poSqswtJvaXAMWKvNF/qJc9ELhpkIHUn4WHCtu1HQo+eyBuPzWxXGzugEZG51kcj +hDJg98jp3jBWALLuGQypzeEq1KqbUFICXD4RocAwB1EwbS9fZg46FRKg90iEJYh EGKk7NLZ6puBziF/wdDze70zKOdY7pilqdlJ8/DtTP2SxbH7ai3E658EUCcOZZ8f Z/fZA0o0N+IFAl8RwxN5kv2c27VOD3OuJCG9BSoqU4L8e8YrXLRxTQU+Z3JWRjjM IZ/WYB2RxHOwRNjA4LlusoRhLBVZfzZFkIq2z2XNOe3L2EHT6NCttdumFmt5jDa1 KOXszYMA06Heiqo24GszN1igor0YplZZjJXnkdfksZLb6Aocb/LqwZEzus2g4N/S q+fC3DxkOQJfjvRt/U17HzURt5aE+tRNX4Eyn89eY2yVg1m8gKEsBDQO/2Sbl06P Ff67sQ9A0Z9EgX7UdBSmkX0HEwuLJr3aOzHY4TDXgmhNSp64yF+8RzdxVKQsDNAg 9sZSSXG+NzYaOrEfUEMX =0nVY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tChqb8AStiWLuT8IQjTg4ELiGcg0wFtCu--