Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933620AbaKMS2t (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:28:49 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0123.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.123]:47702 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932784AbaKMS2s (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:28:48 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1540:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2110:2393:2559:2562:2693:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3871:3872:3874:4250:4321:5007:6119:6261:7903:8531:8603:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12050:12517:12519:12740:13069:13255:13311:13357:14096:14097:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: wound71_2f6a388c49e3e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1869 Message-ID: <1415903324.4223.5.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: pl330: Fix linker error "undefined reference to `__aeabi_uldivmod'" From: Joe Perches To: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" Cc: Vinod Koul , dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:28:44 -0800 In-Reply-To: <1415902763.1787.8.camel@linaro.org> References: <1415896047.1787.4.camel@linaro.org> <1415898172.4223.1.camel@perches.com> <1415902763.1787.8.camel@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.7-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 18:19 +0000, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > There are many ways to code the limiting of the burst width, but as it > starts out as the data bus width the DMA can handle (maximum 16 bytes) > then at most we'll be going round the existing while loop 4 times so I > don't think it's that much overhead, and probably less code size than > using ffs. For arm, isn't ffs just a few instruction with no loops? > And as the driver has been broken for the unaligned memcpy case since > the day it was added then I can't see that anyone is actually using it > that way anyway, so all existing users (if any) must already be doing > bus aligned copies and the current while loop will iterate zero times. That's probably right, I just don't like reading while loops where ffs/fls might be suitable. > That's probably enough bikeshedding from me :-) ;) Me too. cheers, Joe -- 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/