[PATCH 1/3] gianfar: Implement workaround for eTSEC74 erratum
davem at davemloft.net
Thu Jul 1 04:37:06 EST 2010
From: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov at mvista.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:38:04 +0400
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 03:16:26PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> 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.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev