On Thursday, August 18, 2011 06:07:06 Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 08:03:54 PM Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday, August 15, 2011 05:09:42 Valentin Longchamp wrote:
> > > On 08/14/2011 09:07 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 08:37:00 Valentin Longchamp wrote:
> > > >> --- a/include/post.h
> > > >> +++ b/include/post.h
> > > >> 
> > > >> +/*
> > > >> + * some ARM implementations have to use gd->ram_size, since
> > > >> POST_WORD is + * defined in RAM
> > > >> + */
> > > >> +DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
> > > > 
> > > > i'm not sure about this.  no other header has been allowed to do this
> > > > in the past, and i dont think we should start now.
> > > 
> > > OK. Then we should move the post_word_load and post_word_store function
> > > to post/post.c. Would this be accepted ?
> > 
> > that would add overhead that most people dont need.  i guess the only
> > other option would be to add a CONFIG_POST_EXTERNAL_WORD_FUNCS and then
> > post.h would just define the two funcs as externs.  it'd be up to the
> > board porters to define them however they want.
> 
> We don't want externs. Why would moving it into post.c introduce any
> overhead ?

because the current code expands into a single memory read/write for many 
arches.  moving it into post.c already means making it into an extern and now 
people have to call an external function instead of inlining the memory 
access.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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

Reply via email to