On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 10:22 +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 01:48:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: [] > ccing you just slipped out of my mind.
No worries. > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c > > > b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c > > [] > > > @@ -1067,8 +1067,6 @@ static int fbtft_init_display_dt(struct fbtft_par > > > *par) > > > const __be32 *p; > > > u32 val; > > > int buf[64], i, j; > > [] > > > par->fbtftops.write_register(par, i, > > > buf[0], buf[1], buf[2], buf[3], > > > > It seems there are only 2 callers of (*write_register)() > > and the arguments are always an in-order array int[64] > > > > Maybe it'd be nicer to change the prototypes of the > > write_register functions to take a const int * > > instead of pushing 64 ints on the stack. > yes, I will send it as a separate patch as that is another change. I looked at it a bit more and there's a macro that calls write_register so there are actually many more call sites. It's a bit non trivial to change the macro as all the called (*write_register) functions would need changing and these functions use va_list. Maybe if you _really_ feel like it, but it's a bit of work. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
