From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Aneesh V <aneesh@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:40:09 +0530
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 13/22] omap4: add clock support
In-Reply-To: <20110621102242.DC88711EEDB1@gemini.denx.de>
References: <1298893591-17636-1-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com>
	<1305472900-4004-14-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com>
	<4E0030F8.6030104@ti.com> <4E003952.30901@ti.com>
	<4E00447B.9070804@ti.com>
	<20110621082048.2311611EEDB1@gemini.denx.de>
	<4E005F9E.8050003@ti.com>
	<20110621102242.DC88711EEDB1@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <4E007C11.7060401@ti.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Tuesday 21 June 2011 03:52 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Aneesh V,
>
> In message<4E005F9E.8050003@ti.com>  you wrote:
>>
>> In my function I am using 3 such arrays with quite a few entries in
>> them. Won't it look ugly besides increasing the stack footprint.
>
> I don;t see a significant difference whether you declare these arrays
> inside a function or with file scope.
>
> Regarding the stack footprint: this would actually even be preferrable
> (assuming this code is run after relocation to RAM), and from what

Indeed this runs before relocation. But I think I can keep the array
size to a reasonable level by splitting the function. Also, as you said
if the array is optimized out there should not be any problem.

best regards,
Aneesh