On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 08:40:01PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > >> move this to an assembly file more easy to read than a C code > > > > > > > > > > Nope. It's a pain to pass variable to an external assembly file, and > > > > > this makes the use of global variable pretty much mandatory, which is > > > > > definitely not great. > > > > > > > > Not at all I did for the PM slow clock code just write a function and pas it as a parameter > > > > you have 3 > > > > > > > > so basically you have to use the current and just pass at91_ramc_base[0], at91_ramc_base[1] > > > > and at91_rstc_base > > > > it’s 3 lignes of modification, if you have at91_ramc_base and at91_ramc_base same > > > > > > > > > > Yes, retrieving function parameters from assembly code is not that > > > complicated (the first 4 pointer values are accessible through r0-r3), > > > but then you'll have to store your assembly file somewhere. > > > > Like I was saying, there's a strong preference for the inline > > assembly... > > inline is horrible to read and maintain NACK > > keep it in an assembly file it's so easy to read and follow > > and you just have to move the file existing to the driver/power Well, the whole rest of the kernel community feels otherwise. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
