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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
