On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:18 AM Boris Brezillon <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:11:20 -0400 > Kamal Dasu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Boris, > > > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:57 AM Boris Brezillon > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 30 May 2019 17:20:35 -0400 > > > Kamal Dasu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Refactored NAND ECC and CMD address configuration code to use inline > > > > functions. > > > > > > I'd expect the compiler to be smart enough to decide when inlining is > > > appropriate. Did you check that adding the inline specifier actually > > > makes a difference? > > > > This was done to make the code more readable. It does not make any > > difference to performance. > > I meant dropping the inline specifier, not going back to manual > inlining. As a general rule, you don't need to add the 'inline' > specifier unless your function is defined in a header. In all other > cases the compiler is able to inline things on its own when it sees the > number of instructions is small enough or when the function is only > called once.
Oh ok got it, will get rid if the inline specifier and send a v2 version of the change. Thanks Kamal
