On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:40:01 AM Simon Glass wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Marek Vasut marek.vasut@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 01:57:52 PM Nick Thompson wrote:
On 27/09/11 11:21, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 11:31:15 AM Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Marek Vasut,
In message 1317062895-3847-1-git-send-email-marek.vasut@gmail.com you
wrote:
The size of uboot binary grows by a few bytes, but the gain (better type checking) is worth it.
And what _exactly_ are "a few bytes" ?
Nevermind, it must have been some kind of a fluctuation yesterday. Right now, I made a new measurement and the size didn't change with/without the patch (this is more what I'd expect to happen).
Cheers
Pure speculation on my part, but /could/ this be because ARM drivers don't tend to use these macros/functions. write[bwl] and the like are much more common. I don't know this to be a fact though.
No, I'm dead sure I use this macro in the test.
Nick.
Hi,
Can't comment on the patch format, etc.
I tested this on my Seaboard, with no code size increase, and all worked as expected. I can't see why it would increase code size either.
But I have a few questions: what devices actually uses this macro?
common/cmd_ide.c for example.
Otherwise I'm not sure if I am testing anything. Also, why not convert all the macros in this file? Seems like a good idea to me. Or is this patch just to test the waters? :-)
We should eventually get rid of all that crap altogether and unify the hardware access. But that seems like a long-term plan :-(
Cheers
Regards, Simon