Re: [patch/rfc 1/4] GPIO implementation framework

["eric miao" <eric.y.miao@gmail.com>]

Y, the IRQ <--> GPIO mapping is another thing I'm concerned about. Other than
that, all the other part of the gpiolib is a great work, actually,
I've been waiting
for this for quite a long time and just don't have time for a hands-on until
recently.

So let's get more feedback on this.

On Nov 14, 2007 3:19 PM, David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > >  struct gpio_desc {
> > > >       struct gpio_chip *chip;
> > > >       unsigned is_out:1;
> > > > +     unsigned requested:1;
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> > > > +     const char *requested_str;
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > Note that this means (on typical 32-bit embedded hardware)
> > > twelve bytes per GPIO, which if you assume 256 GPIOs means
> > > an extra 3 KB static memory compared to the patch I sent.
>
> Actually, 2K is a more accurate number -- ignore DEBUG_FS.
>
>
> > Note this reduces the memory in gpio_chip, so it consumes almost same
> > memory as the patch you sent.
>
> No; the amount of space shaved from a typical (32-bit banks)
> gpio_chip is *exactly* the cost of one gpio_desc:  two words.
> In one case, two bitmaps.  In the other, a pointer, two bits,
> and internal struct padding.
>
> So unless each bank has only a single GPIO, this approach
> does cost more memory.  Both for the extra memory associated
> with each gpio_chip that's used, and for unused gpio_desc.
>
> That's not necessarily a bad thing, though it's always worth
> avoiding bloat.
>

Well, absolutely agree on this.

> - Dave
>



-- 
Cheers
- eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/