Re: config_activate()/config_deactivate() ?

[David Young <dyoung%pobox.com@localhost>]

On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 10:08:43PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 02:57:11PM -0500, David Young wrote:
> > Expensive?  Please elaborate.
> 
> You seem to have some special per-controller bus space implementation
> in mind and want to add the check for the detached flag there

That's right.

> - not all
> controllers require that indirection level, so it would have to be added.

Do you think that it will be a great deal slower on SPARC?

IIUC, calling functions through pointers on ARM's bus_space(9)
implementation should be avoided on ARM for performance reasons.  The
SPARC port seems to already use function pointers, though.

x86 does not use function pointers, yet.  If we still need to avoid
them on performance grounds (I doubt it), then we can probably add an
"invalidated" flag to the bus_space_tag on x86.

Dave

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
dyoung%ojctech.com@localhost      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933