[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200612211125.49226.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:25:47 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: "pHilipp Zabel" <philipp.zabel@...il.com>
Cc: "Nicolas Pitre" <nico@....org>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>,
"Linux Kernel list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Andrew Victor" <andrew@...people.com>,
"Bill Gatliff" <bgat@...lgatliff.com>,
"Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@...el.com>, jamey.hicks@...com,
"Kevin Hilman" <khilman@...sta.com>,
"Russell King" <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
"Tony Lindgren" <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.20-rc1 4/6] PXA GPIO wrappers
On Thursday 21 December 2006 7:03 am, pHilipp Zabel wrote:
> On 12/21/06, Nicolas Pitre <nico@....org> wrote:
> +static inline void __gpio_set_value(unsigned gpio, int value)
> +{
> + if (value)
> + GPSR(gpio) = GPIO_bit(gpio);
> + else
> + GPCR(gpio) = GPIO_bit(gpio);
> +}
> +
> +#define gpio_set_value(gpio,value) \
> + (__builtin_constant_p(gpio) ? \
Should that be testing for _both_ gpio and value being constant?
I tend to think it should (assuming nonconstant 'variable' means
this costs more than a function call) ...
> + __gpio_set_value(gpio, value) : \
> + pxa_gpio_set_value(gpio, value))
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists