On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:53:07AM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 07:52:37PM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h b/drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h > >> index 291e64d..5e24758 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h > >> +++ b/drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h > >> @@ -2176,5 +2176,24 @@ static inline uint32_t e1000_read_reg(struct e1000_hw *hw, uint32_t reg) > >> } > >> > >> > >> +static inline int e1000_poll_reg(struct e1000_hw *hw, uint32_t reg, > >> + uint32_t mask, uint32_t value, > >> + uint64_t timeout) > > > > We should let the compiler decide whether to inline this or not. Can we > > remove the inline? > > In general the reason I put "inline" when defining functions in > headers -- that is not to say that it applies in this case -- is > because that tells the compiler that the code for function doesn't > have to put in the object file if no one is using it. Otherwise when > .c that doesn't reference includes .h with static non-inline function > that nobody uses GCC might emit a warning about unused function. I didn't realize this function is in the header file. Can we put it in the C file? > > I'd love to do that. How do you feel about getting rid of > E1000_READ_REG and E1000_WRITE_REG? Good idea. I'm all in for that. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
