Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 8 Oct 2019 10:31:45 +0100
From:   Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@gmail.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
        linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] backlight: pwm_bl: drop use of int_pow()
Message-ID: <20191008093145.kgx6ytkbycmmkist@holly.lan>
References: <20190919140620.32407-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <20190919140620.32407-3-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <20191007152800.3nhbf7h7knumriz4@holly.lan>
 <5f19e307-29c4-f077-568d-b2bd6ae74608@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5f19e307-29c4-f077-568d-b2bd6ae74608@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 07/10/2019 17.28, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 04:06:18PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > 
> > It feels like there is some rationale missing in the description here.
> > 
> > What is the benefit of replacing the explicit int_pow() with the
> > implicit multiplications?
> > 
> > 
> > Daniel.
> > 
> > 
> >>
> >> We could (and a following patch will) change to use a power-of-2 scale,
> >> but for a fixed small exponent of 3, there's no advantage in using
> >> repeated squaring.
> 
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Apart from the function call overhead (and resulting register pressure
> etc.), using int_pow is less efficient (for an exponent of 3, it ends up
> doing four 64x64 multiplications instead of just two). But feel free to
> drop it, I'm not going to pursue it further - it just seemed like a
> sensible thing to do while I was optimizing the code anyway.
> 
> [At the time I wrote the patch, this was also the only user of int_pow
> in the tree, so it also allowed removing int_pow altogether.]

To be honest the change is fine but the patch description doesn't make
sense if the only current purpose of the patch is as a optimization.


Daniel.