[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: Convert {in, out}s[bwl] to inline functions

[Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:40:01 AM Simon Glass wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 01:57:52 PM Nick Thompson wrote:
> >> On 27/09/11 11:21, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 11:31:15 AM Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >> >> Dear Marek Vasut,
> >> >> 
> >> >> In message <1317062895-3847-1-git-send-email-marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> >> >> you
> > 
> > wrote:
> >> >>> The size of uboot binary grows by a few bytes, but the gain (better
> >> >>> type checking) is worth it.
> >> >> 
> >> >> And what _exactly_ are "a few bytes" ?
> >> > 
> >> > Nevermind, it must have been some kind of a fluctuation yesterday.
> >> > Right now, I made a new measurement and the size didn't change
> >> > with/without the patch (this is more what I'd expect to happen).
> >> > 
> >> > Cheers
> >> 
> >> Pure speculation on my part, but /could/ this be because ARM drivers
> >> don't tend to use these macros/functions. write[bwl] and the like are
> >> much more common. I don't know this to be a fact though.
> > 
> > No, I'm dead sure I use this macro in the test.
> > 
> >> Nick.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Can't comment on the patch format, etc.
> 
> I tested this on my Seaboard, with no code size increase, and all
> worked as expected. I can't see why it would increase code size
> either.
> 
> But I have a few questions: what devices actually uses this macro?

common/cmd_ide.c for example.

> Otherwise I'm not sure if I am testing anything. Also, why not convert
> all the macros in this file? Seems like a good idea to me. Or is this
> patch just to test the waters? :-)

We should eventually get rid of all that crap altogether and unify the hardware 
access. But that seems like a long-term plan :-(

Cheers
> 
> Regards,
> Simon