On 11/03/2015 11:02 AM, Igor Grinberg wrote: >>>>> + >>>>> +/** >>>>> + * board_am_rev_is() - Compare board revision >>>>> + * @rev_tag: Revision tag to check in eeprom >>>>> + * @cmp_len: How many chars to compare? >>>>> + * >>>>> + * NOTE: revision information is often messed up (hence the str len >>>>> match) :( >>>>> + * >>>>> + * Return: false if board information does not match OR eeprom >>>>> was'nt read. >>>>> + * true otherwise >>>>> + */ >>>>> +static inline bool board_am_rev_is(char *rev_tag, int cmp_len) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + struct ti_am_eeprom *ep = TI_AM_EEPROM_DATA; >>>>> + int l; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (ep->header != TI_EEPROM_HEADER_MAGIC) >>>>> + return false; >>>>> + >>>>> + l = cmp_len > TI_EEPROM_HDR_REV_LEN ? TI_EEPROM_HDR_NAME_LEN : >>>>> cmp_len; >>>>> + return !strncmp(ep->version, rev_tag, l); >>>>> +} >>>> >>>> Same here. >>>> >>> I thought by making them static inline would save space. >> >> I prefer that myself as well. > > I'm not sure I understand what space will it save? > AFAIK, inline places the function code inside the the caller function > and thus spreads into each caller, no? It probably saves some branches, > but how does that save space?
I dont think it saves space, but rather a function call overhead for trivial code as above. > Also, AFAIR, we try to not place code inside headers, unless the code > is a stub. That does not always make sense. here it is a straight forward comparison.. why hide it a function call deep when you can inline it? -- Regards, Nishanth Menon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot