From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailout10.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.21]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1BZf6D-0005jv-5R for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:13:20 -0400 From: "Thomas Gleixner" To: Marc Singer , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 02:07:48 +0200 References: <20040613214329.GA2282@buici.com> In-Reply-To: <20040613214329.GA2282@buici.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200406140207.48467.tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH] MTD Maps driver for Sharp LH7a40x Reply-To: tglx@linutronix.de List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sunday 13 June 2004 23:43, Marc Singer wrote: > I've removed the ununsed, if-def's and commented, code from the > driver. > > As for the C_MAPS loop, there doesn't seem to be a good way to remove > it. Even though there is only one 'chip', we still the map_info > structure for the simple_map_init() and friends. The number of code > code bytes to be saved is nomimal. The change would be to remove the > array references. How do they make the code 'confusing'? That's not a question of code bytes. Why does this code need a for (i = 0; i < C_MAPS;...) loop, if there is only one chip which has to be detected, neglected or whatever and C_MAPS is therefor 1 ? In fact the whole driver could be replaced by command line options. -- Thomas