From: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 17:46:54 +0100
> On 14/02/2019 17:38, David Miller wrote:
>
>> From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 19:49:22 +0530
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/at803x.c b/drivers/net/phy/at803x.c
>>> index 8ff12938ab47..7b54b54e3316 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/phy/at803x.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/at803x.c
>>> @@ -110,6 +110,18 @@ static int at803x_debug_reg_mask(struct phy_device *phydev, u16 reg,
>>> return phy_write(phydev, AT803X_DEBUG_DATA, val);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static inline int at803x_enable_rx_delay(struct phy_device *phydev)
>>> +{
>>> + return at803x_debug_reg_mask(phydev, AT803X_DEBUG_REG_0, 0,
>>> + AT803X_DEBUG_RX_CLK_DLY_EN);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static inline int at803x_enable_tx_delay(struct phy_device *phydev)
>>> +{
>>> + return at803x_debug_reg_mask(phydev, AT803X_DEBUG_REG_5, 0,
>>> + AT803X_DEBUG_TX_CLK_DLY_EN);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> Please do not use the inline directive in foo.c files, let the compiler
>> decide.
>
> Isn't the compiler free to ignore the "inline" hint?
I'm not going into this, but our rules are to not use the inline keyword
except in header files where they are required in order to not emit a
static copy of the function into every file that includes the header.
