On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Ryan Harkin <ryan.har...@linaro.org> wrote:

>> Didn't I ask for some changes on that PCIe patch?
>>
>
> Good point.  I thought you'd grudgingly accepted it, but I see your
> last comment was:
>
> "Yes, thanks.  I think it's just a style thing then.  We don't do a lot
> of static inline nop functions, we do __weak functions in the main file
> (and comment about what it should be doing in a real function) and then
> provide the strong version in another file.  So just the pcie.h part
> needs changing then."
>
> I'll ping Linus about it on his thread and see if he wants to issue a
> v2.  Then I'll come back to this patch later.

Argh, yeah I kind of dropped that patch because I wanted it my way
but don't have energy to argue about it...

I think it is better that the preprocessor just remove code that is never
used than to have the compiler patch out functions at compile time
by marking them __weak. It certainly will compile a few cycles quicker.

Ryan if you would rather want to do it in the __weak way so as to get
things upstream, go ahead.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Reply via email to