From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: Convert {in, out}s[bwl] to inline functions
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:56:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201109281256.47233.marek.vasut@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPnjgZ39_RArLzzTdF5imasDE7VWtPiMyUqmF2oL=VnqHBG4TQ@mail.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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-28 10:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-26 18:48 [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: Convert {in,out}s[bwl] to inline functions Marek Vasut
2011-09-27 8:59 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: Convert {in, out}s[bwl] " Nick Thompson
2011-09-27 9:31 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-09-27 10:21 ` Marek Vasut
2011-09-27 11:57 ` Nick Thompson
2011-09-27 12:02 ` Marek Vasut
2011-09-27 22:40 ` Simon Glass
2011-09-28 10:56 ` Marek Vasut [this message]
2011-09-27 9:32 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-09-27 10:08 ` Marek Vasut
2011-09-28 20:46 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-09-28 20:58 ` Marek Vasut
2011-09-28 21:15 ` Wolfgang Denk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201109281256.47233.marek.vasut@gmail.com \
--to=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox