Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1559251257-12383-1-git-send-email-kdasu.kdev@gmail.com>
 <20190601095748.35d1c1aa@collabora.com> <CAC=U0a1q2CTZx+btLBJNewK8Rv3WXVE-ZV+j5fFWZPJLoJ94NA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190603161825.4044f953@collabora.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190603161825.4044f953@collabora.com>
From:   Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:39:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAC=U0a1Re=+=EmoFEx2yAO-ffHu6uLErX5g_OzruyrL_DX2ZGA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mtd: nand: raw: brcmnand: Refactored code and
 introduced inline functions
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
Cc:     MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:18 AM Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon@collabora.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:11:20 -0400
> Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Boris,
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:57 AM Boris Brezillon
> > <boris.brezillon@collabora.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 30 May 2019 17:20:35 -0400
> > > Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Refactored NAND ECC and CMD address configuration code to use inline
> > > > functions.
> > >
> > > I'd expect the compiler to be smart enough to decide when inlining is
> > > appropriate. Did you check that adding the inline specifier actually
> > > makes a difference?
> >
> > This was done to make the code more readable. It does not make any
> > difference to performance.
>
> I meant dropping the inline specifier, not going back to manual
> inlining. As a general rule, you don't need to add the 'inline'
> specifier unless your function is defined in a header. In all other
> cases the compiler is able to inline things on its own when it sees the
> number of instructions is small enough or when the function is only
> called once.

Oh ok got it, will get rid if the inline specifier  and send a v2
version of the change.

Thanks
Kamal