On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 02:26:15PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> > static inline int spd_read_byte(unsigned device, unsigned address)
> > {
> > - uint8_t c;
> > - c = smbus_read_byte(device, address);
> > - return c;
> > + return smbus_read_byte(device, address);
> > }
>
> Did you compare the assembler code produced by romcc, verifying that
> this has no bad impact?Nope, but the 'return smbus_read_byte(device, address)' variant is already used in many places in svn, so I'm somewhat confident it works as expected. If it would _not_ work then there should have been a big fat warning in the code that this is done deliberately to workaround romcc issues. Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- linuxbios mailing list [email protected] http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
