From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:67c:670:201:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1aLnFy-0002eR-DT for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 07:32:43 +0000 Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:32:18 +0100 From: Sascha Hauer Message-ID: <20160120073218.GL13058@pengutronix.de> References: <1453089161-6697-1-git-send-email-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> <1453089161-6697-16-git-send-email-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> <20160119082149.GJ13058@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/20] e1000: Add functions for register polling To: Andrey Smirnov Cc: "barebox@lists.infradead.org" On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:53:07AM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 07:52:37PM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov > >> --- > >> 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@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox