On Wed 2018-06-06 07:33:32, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
Hi,
Am 05.06.2018 um 22:39 schrieb Pavel Machek pavel@ucw.cz:
On Tue 2018-06-05 18:37:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Pavel Machek pavel@ucw.cz wrote:
On Thu 2018-05-17 06:59:49, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
The register constants are so far defined in a way that they fit for the pcal9555a when shifted by the number of banks, i.e. are multiplied by 2 in the accessor function.
Now, the pcal6524 has 3 banks which means the relative offset is multiplied by 4 for the standard registers.
Simply applying the bit shift to the extended registers gives a wrong result, since the base offset is already included in the offset.
Therefore, we have to add code to the 24 bit accessor functions that adjusts the register number for these exended registers.
The formula finally used was developed and proposed by Andy Shevchenko andy.shevchenko@gmail.com.
int bank_shift = fls((chip->gpio_chip.ngpio - 1) / BANK_SZ);
int addr = (reg & PCAL_GPIO_MASK) << bank_shift;int pinctrl = (reg & PCAL_PINCTRL_MASK) << 1;Is this reasonable to do on each register access? Compiler will not be able to optimize out fls and shifts, right?
On modern CPUs fls() is one assembly command. OTOH, any proposal to do this better?
What I can see is that bank_shift is invariant to the function, and maybe cached.
Yes, I thought that caching bank_shift might be good idea. I thought it was constant for given chip...
Yes, it is an f(chip), but the question that comes to my mind is if optimization is worth any effort. This is an accessor method over
It will also be less ugly. Copy&pasted complex exprepsion all over the driver is not nice. Pavel