Dear "Chemparathy, Cyril",
In message <8ffaa0bfc4e5374b8f85f65fe1f2bfa58ba44...@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: w...@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.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
