On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 21, 2011 06:37:30 Simon Glass wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> > On Sunday, August 21, 2011 12:35:51 AM Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> +{
>> >> + debug("offset=%#x, sector_size=%#x, len=%#x\n",
>> >> + offset, flash->sector_size, len);
>> >> + if (spi_flash_read(flash, offset, len, cmp_buf))
>> >> + return "read";
>> >> + if (memcmp(cmp_buf, buf, len) == 0) {
>> >> + debug("Skip region %x size %x: no change\n",
>> >> + offset, len);
>> >> + *skipped += len;
>> >> + return NULL;
>> >> + }
>> >> + if (spi_flash_erase(flash, offset, len))
>> >> + return "erase";
>> >> + if (spi_flash_write(flash, offset, len, buf))
>> >> + return "write";
>> >
>> > Numeric value won't be ok ? You can have these in the calling function
>> > instead of returning a char *.
>>
>> Yes it's a bit odd, but the alternative is quite a bit more verbose:
>>
>> enum {
>> OPER_MALLOC,
>> OPER_READ,
>> OPER_ERASE,
>> ...
>> };
>>
>> static const char *names[OPER...] = {
>
> static const char * const names[] = {
>
>> "malloc",
>> "read",
>> "erase"
>> ...
>> };
>>
>> Is that better?
>
> only if the code size is smaller ;)
Hi Mike,
Well it is 4 bytes larger, or 8 if I avoid char * for the array and
fix the string length. So I will leave that as is for now, and send a
new v5 patch.
Regards,
Simon
> -mike
>
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
