30 Mar
2010
30 Mar
'10
11:34 p.m.
Dear "Chemparathy, Cyril",
In message 8FFAA0BFC4E5374B8F85F65FE1F2BFA58BA44726@dlee02.ent.ti.com you wrote:
+void lpsc_control(unsigned int id, int state) +{
- __lpsc_control(1, -1, id, state);
+}
+int lpsc_status(unsigned int id) +{
- return psc_reg_read(PSC_MDSTAT(id)) & 0x1f;
+}
+void clk_enable(unsigned int id) +{
- lpsc_control(id, PSC_MDCTL_NEXT_ENABLE);
+}
+void clk_disable(unsigned int id) +{
- lpsc_control(id, PSC_MDCTL_NEXT_DISABLE);
+}
These should probably be inlined ?
Are you referring to lpsc_control(), or to clk_enable/clk_disable?
Both of them.
The former can be eliminated, I think. The latter are used elsewhere. Are you recommending that I inline and move to a header?
Yes. Assuming we really need sone one-line wrapper functions.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hard-
ware has limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing
machines are so poor at I/O.