On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Bob Copeland<m...@bobcopeland.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Luis R. > Rodriguez<lrodrig...@atheros.com> wrote: >> This matches ath9k, providing consistency when reading both drivers. >> >> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <lrodrig...@atheros.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath5k/base.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath5k/base.c >> b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath5k/base.c >> index 63c2b57..2b3cf39 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath5k/base.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath5k/base.c >> @@ -471,7 +471,7 @@ ath5k_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, >> * DMA to work so force a reasonable value here if it >> * comes up zero. >> */ >> - csz = L1_CACHE_BYTES / sizeof(u32); >> + csz = L1_CACHE_BYTES >> 2; >> pci_write_config_byte(pdev, PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE, csz); > > I'm not sure it's better,
I did this for consistency between drivers but yes the advantage with a shift is it should be cheaper than a multiplication. Although I am not sure if simple multiplications get optimized by either the compiler or an architecture to shifts. > although the whole thing seems bogus to > me. Is there really a modern machine where PCI cache line size should > only be four bytes? Beats me, I was just matching the code for ath9k. The whole cache alignment practice seems to be debatable to me and and hoping Sam Leffer might recall the exact reasonings behind it. Whether we remove this though would be a change which should go through a separate patch I think. Luis _______________________________________________ ath5k-devel mailing list ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
