On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:05:10AM +0100, Kenneth Aafl?y wrote: > 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_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.. It's not about performance, but code size. > > Or are you talking about converting it all back to the old crappy style? > > Ahh, your thinking stv0299 inittab style? Yeah, /whatever/ inittab style. There's no reason to use inittabs in one place and single writereg calls in another place for the same thing. Johannes
