Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-162465-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
From: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>
To: "Michael Walle" <mwalle@kernel.org>
Cc: "Pratyush Yadav" <pratyush@kernel.org>,  "Tudor Ambarus"
 <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>,  "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
  "Richard Weinberger" <richard@nod.at>,  "Vignesh Raghavendra"
 <vigneshr@ti.com>,  "Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>,
  <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,  <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: replace unnecessary div64_u64() with
 div_u64()
In-Reply-To: <D0WNIVK1DBL5.3KQOD1K2O128P@kernel.org> (Michael Walle's message
	of "Mon, 29 Apr 2024 15:47:13 +0200")
References: <20240429121113.803703-1-mwalle@kernel.org>
	<mafs05xw0cn8v.fsf@kernel.org> <D0WNIVK1DBL5.3KQOD1K2O128P@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 16:42:30 +0200
Message-ID: <mafs0mspcb57t.fsf@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, Apr 29 2024, Michael Walle wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 3:27 PM CEST, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 29 2024, Michael Walle wrote:
>>
>> > Both occurences of div64_u64() just have a u8 or u32 divisor. Use
>> > div_u64() instead.
>>
>> Does this improve performance or is this only for correctness?
>
> See function doc for div_u64():
>
>  * This is the most common 64bit divide and should be used if possible,
>  * as many 32bit archs can optimize this variant better than a full 64bit
>  * divide.

Thanks. I think it would be good to add this to the commit message:

    Both occurences of div64_u64() just have a u8 or u32 divisor. Use
    div_u64() instead. Many 32 bit architectures can optimize this
    variant better than a full 64 bit divide.

No need to resend, I can do this when applying.

>
>> Patch LGTM otherwise.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>
>>
>> BTW, I also noticed that there is a do_div() call in spi_nor_write()
>> that also uses a u64 dividend and u32 divisor. I was wondering why it
>> uses do_div() and not div_u64() (I am not sure what the difference
>> between the two is) but I suppose it doesn't matter much since your
>> spring cleaning series will delete that code anyway.
>
> do_div() is a macro and is modifying the dividend in place, whereas
> div_u64() will return it. do_div() is using u32 for the divisor
> anyway.
>
> -michael
>

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav