Re: [patch 2.6.25-rc5 1/2] gpiolib: dynamic gpio number allocation

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:53:58 -0800 David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thursday 13 March 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:18:58 -0800
> > David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thursday 13 March 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > 
> > > > hm.  I suppose that if someone want a huge number of GPIOs then we can
> > > > convert this to a bitmap or an IDR tree easily enough.
> > > 
> > > Actually, I tried IDRs for a while and they broke platforms
> > > which needed to initialize and use GPIOs early: before kmalloc
> > > would work.  A real PITA that was -- and slow too.
> > 
> > If IDRs were slow, that linear search will be glacial.
> 
> The slowness of IDRs was needing to use them for the
> routine lookups ... versus the current array index,
> which costs a fraction of an instruction cycle and
> doesn't need separate locks.
> 
> Or were you implying they should be used for something
> other than mapping GPIO numbers to controllers/state?
> 

For dynamic allocation.  There should be no need for lookups outside
register/unregister.


Where did the CONFIG_NR_GPIOS discussion disappear to?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/