From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tomasz.figa@gmail.com (Tomasz Figa) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 00:59:59 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v4 5/5] clk/exynos5260: add clock file for exynos5260 In-Reply-To: <531AE1CD.2070203@samsung.com> References: <1394113551-2134-1-git-send-email-rahul.sharma@samsung.com> <5319D3E5.4000001@gmail.com> <5319E445.9000409@gmail.com> <531AE1CD.2070203@samsung.com> Message-ID: <531D007F.4030800@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 08.03.2014 10:24, Pankaj Dubey wrote: > Hi Rahul, > I modified code as per our discussion and addressed all comments > including moving fixed clock to DT > and found it's working well, so we can now finalize which way to go ahead. > Following is some data between V4 and probable next version, which might > help in making decision. > > drivers/clk/samsung/exynos5260-clock.c > > Before Change > LoC: 1890 > size drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5260.o > text data bss dec hex filename > 14226 14956 0 29182 71fe > drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5260.o > > After Change: > LoC: 1806 > size drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5260.o > text data bss dec hex filename > 15446 14544 0 29990 7526 > drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5260.o Well, somehow I've been under impression that the change would bring more significant results. Here we can see slight reduction in lines of code, but also slight increase of kernel image size. Still, in general, nothing extreme. In this case I'd probably go with Rahul's original code, as it doesn't require second matching and separate match table, which adds redundant compatible strings used just for this extra matching pass. I guess this is all just bike shedding, though. Best regards, Tomasz