From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-x234.google.com ([2a00:1450:4008:c01::234]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1UjFUw-0000kP-Ai for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 02 Jun 2013 21:07:31 +0000 Received: by mail-bk0-f52.google.com with SMTP id e11so454063bkh.39 for ; Sun, 02 Jun 2013 14:07:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Fritz In-Reply-To: <1365706897.4136.24.camel@mars> References: <1365057762.3836.18.camel@mars> <20130405085917.GK1906@pengutronix.de> <1365372959.20809.6.camel@lovely> <20130408071715.GS1568@game.jcrosoft.org> <20130409071608.GD1906@pengutronix.de> <20130409132917.GX1568@game.jcrosoft.org> <1365706897.4136.24.camel@mars> Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 23:07:02 +0200 Message-ID: <1370207222.5021.0.camel@lovely> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] omap4-fb: add driver To: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org *ping* On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 21:01 +0200, Christoph Fritz wrote: > Hi Jean-Christophe > > On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 15:29 +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > wrote: > > On 09:16 Tue 09 Apr , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 09:17:15AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > On 00:15 Mon 08 Apr , Christoph Fritz wrote: > > > > > This patch adds omap4 display controller support. > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > +static inline void fb_write(uint32_t v, void __iomem *addr) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + __raw_writel(v, addr); > > > > > +} > > > > > + > > > > > +static inline uint32_t fb_read(void const __iomem *addr) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + return __raw_readl(addr); > > > > > +} > > > > what is the dif? > > > > > > Maybe Christoph understands what you mean here. I don't > > those 2 inline as useless > > You want me to purge the "inline" because gcc is smart enough to use > inlining on its own? > > Or are you noting that using a function here is overkill for only one > call inside? > > I use functions here because it makes debugging more easy and if you > have a weird hardware config, here you can easily adapt the read and > write functions. > > > > > > + > > > > > + fbi->regs.dss = dev_request_mem_region(dev, OMAP4_FB_RESOURCE_DSS); > > > > > + fbi->regs.dispc = dev_request_mem_region(dev, OMAP4_FB_RESOURCE_DISPC); > > > > use named dev_request > > > > > > We don't have such a function. > > yes we do > > > > dev_request_mem_region_by_name > > Ok > > Thanks > -- Christoph > _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox