[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM:asm:io.h use static inline

[Jeroen Hofstee <jeroen@myspectrum.nl>]

Hello Albert,

On za, 2014-07-05 at 11:13 +0200, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hi Jeroen,
> 
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 23:10:39 +0200, Jeroen Hofstee
> <jeroen@myspectrum.nl> wrote:
> 
> > When compiling u-boot with W=1 the extern inline void for
> > read* is likely causing the most noise. gcc / clang will
> > warn there is never a actual declaration for these functions.
> > Instead of declaring these extern make them static inline so
> > it is actually declared.
> > 
> > cc: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
> > Signed-off-by: Jeroen Hofstee <jeroen@myspectrum.nl>
> > ---
> 
> Ok, so the obvious question: what makes you decide to switch to 'static
> inline' rather than provide the extern versions that 'extern static'
> calls for?

Assuming your question is, why didn't you just add the prototypes instead?

Well if we wanted to be brave gnu99 citizens we should provide the
prototypes, the extern inline version and a separated definition in
case the compiler fails / is not in the mood to inline the function.
This quite fragile / some housekeeping. Furthermore it is gnu specific
and likely fails with gcc -std=c99 as well.

Making them static inline there is always a single definition and it
is up to the compiler to either inline it or make it a static function
by it self. Since we were already relying on the compiler to inline
it (at least I am unaware that there are non inline version around),
this boils down to the same thing, but without warnings.

And... I can likely drop this one as well[1], although I haven't
checked yet. linux does the same btw for __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 6.

I can check binary size if that something you wonder about...

Regards,
Jeroen

[1] https://github.com/jhofstee/u-boot/commit/5cd261fecc5397bf5abef82f6a781d8b04992654