On Wed, 4 May 2011 15:47:27 +0200 Stefan Roese sr@denx.de wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Wednesday 04 May 2011 15:10:15 Alex Waterman wrote:
From b59f1e5b0bc3684615756c12fd5c5f9fcaa4c812 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alex Waterman awaterman@dawning.com Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 15:00:23 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Decreases code size of the nand_spl
The canyonland boards nand_spl size is just under the maximum 4KByte size. This patch decreases the size of the nand_spl to make a previous commit - commit 65a9db7be0868be91ba81b9b5bf821de82e6d9b0 - fit in the nand_spl.
Signed-off-by: Alex Waterman awaterman@dawning.com
This patch uses a function pointer declared as a local variable; checkpatch didn't mind but this seems like it could be (stylistically) a very bad idea. Any thoughts?
I don't see what's wrong with a local function pointer.
Please see my patches sent a few hours ago:
"nand_spl: nand_boot.c: Init nand_chip.options to 0" "nand_spl: nand_boot.c: Remove CONFIG_SYS_NAND_READ_DELAY"
The 2nd patch fixes the size problem as well. So no need for your patch any more.
Or we could apply both and save even more space, delaying the next time we run into trouble. :-)
-Scott