From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/24] PM / devfreq: tegra30: Inline all one-line
 functions
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 05:14:26 +0300
Message-ID: <20190719051426.4e4145d8@dimatab>
References: <20190707223303.6755-1-digetx@gmail.com>
        <CGME20190707223633epcas4p3873704f3199126be0e8d5cb7454c7a51@epcas4p3.samsung.com>
        <20190707223303.6755-13-digetx@gmail.com>
        <b5634fbe-8bc1-0f04-e13b-6345dfbb5615@samsung.com>
        <b7da3fa2-00d1-5bd6-408c-202c85be917d@gmail.com>
        <45621f73-2f86-cde7-a92e-2a34810b9c05@samsung.com>
        <20190719042251.37cc9cda@dimatab>
        <92f82420-5c50-468f-a403-7b4c36958076@samsung.com>
        <97f2a317-989a-bcad-dd45-ccf00ba18cca@samsung.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <97f2a317-989a-bcad-dd45-ccf00ba18cca@samsung.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>, MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com>, Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>, Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org

=D0=92 Fri, 19 Jul 2019 10:27:16 +0900
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com> =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:

> On 19. 7. 19. =EC=98=A4=EC=A0=84 10:24, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> > On 19. 7. 19. =EC=98=A4=EC=A0=84 10:22, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: =20
> >> =D0=92 Thu, 18 Jul 2019 18:09:05 +0900
> >> Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com> =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:
> >> =20
> >>> On 19. 7. 16. =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 10:35, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: =20
> >>>> 16.07.2019 15:26, Chanwoo Choi =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:   =20
> >>>>> Hi Dmitry,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure that it is necessary.
> >>>>> As I knew, usally, the 'inline' is used on header file
> >>>>> to define the empty functions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do we have to change it with 'inline' keyword?   =20
> >>>>
> >>>> The 'inline' attribute tells compiler that instead of jumping
> >>>> into the function, it should take the function's code and
> >>>> replace the function's invocation with that code. This is done
> >>>> in order to help compiler optimize code properly, please see
> >>>> [1]. There is absolutely no need to create a function call into
> >>>> a function that consists of a single instruction.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.1.0/gcc/Inline.html
> >>>>    =20
> >>>
> >>> If you want to add 'inline' keyword, I recommend that=20
> >>> you better to remove the modified function in this patch
> >>> and then just call the 'write_relaxed or read_relaxed' function
> >>> directly. It is same result when using inline keyword. =20
> >>
> >> That could be done, but it makes code less readable.
> >>
> >> See the difference:
> >>
> >> device_writel(dev, ACTMON_INTR_STATUS_CLEAR,
> >> ACTMON_DEV_INTR_STATUS);
> >>
> >> writel_relaxed(ACTMON_INTR_STATUS_CLEAR,
> >> 	       dev->regs + ACTMON_DEV_INTR_STATUS); =20
> >=20
> > No problem if you add the detailed comment and you want to use
> > the 'inline' keyword. =20
>=20
> Basically, I think that 'inline' keyword is not necessary.

Sure, but I'm finding that it's always nicer to explicitly inline a very
simple functions because compiler may not do it properly itself in some
cases.

> But if you want to use 'inline' keyword, I recommend
> that call the 'write_relaxed or read_relaxed' function directly
> with detailed description.=20

Could you please reword this sentence? Not sure that I'm understanding
it correctly.