Re: [PATCH 1/3] gianfar: Implement workaround for eTSEC74 erratum
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: 2010-06-30 18:36:54
Also in:
linuxppc-dev
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: 2010-06-30 18:36:54
Also in:
linuxppc-dev
From: Anton Vorontsov <redacted> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:38:04 +0400
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 03:16:26PM -0700, David Miller wrote:quoted
I really don't see any value at all to this config option, the errata fixup code should be there all the time.Well, at least for eTSEC76 erratum (patch 2/3) we have to touch fast path (i.e. start_xmit), so I just wanted to make zero overhead for controllers that don't need any fixups. Not that there's much of the overhead in a single additional 'if' condition, no. ;-)
The register accesses will dominate the costs with this chip. The only case where a if() test is going to potentially create some practical performance impact is if the TX is performed purely using changes to a shared memory data structure and absolutely no MMIO register reads or writes.