On Thursday 24 March 2005 00:00, Kenneth Aafl?y wrote: > On Wednesday 23 March 2005 23:56, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > Kenneth Aafl?y wrote: > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, MT352_AGC_TARGET, 0x10); > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, MT352_AGC_CTL, 0x23); > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, 0x69, 0x00); /* Secondary AGC registers 0x69 - 0x70 */ > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, 0x6A, 0xFF); > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, 0x6B, 0xFF); > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, 0x6C, 0x00); > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, 0x6D, 0xFF); > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, 0x6E, 0x00); > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, 0x6F, 0x40); > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, 0x70, 0x40); > > > + > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, MT352_ADC_CTL_1, 0x40); > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, MT352_CAPT_RANGE, 0x32); > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, 0xB5, 0x7A); /* AV771 EXTRA: RESERVED */ > > > > All those function calls generate a lot of code. I would > > use a static array of reg/val pairs and a loop. And since > > this pattern repeats I would offer an inline function. > > First (and actually only) argument would be that they are not in the fast path! > > We could provide a routine to load specific (reserved) sequences like this, > but what's the point? There is no performance gain, only readability, if > these registers ever get documented.. > > Or are you talking about converting it all back to the old crappy style? Ahh, your thinking stv0299 inittab style? Kenneth
