[U-Boot] [PATCH] Davinci: add a pin multiplexer configuration API

[Kim Phillips]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:17:40 +0000
"Thompson, Nick (GE EntSol, Intelligent Platforms)" <Nick.Thompson at gefanuc.com> wrote:

> 
> From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phillips at freescale.com]
> Sent: 30 October 2009 14:57
> > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:26:12 +0100
> > Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > Dear Kim Phillips,
> > >
> > > In message <20091029182304.469c9f7f.kim.phillips at freescale.com> you wrote:
> > > > if (field < PIN_MUX_NUM_FIELDS &&
> > > >     (value & ~PIN_MUX_FIELD_MASK) == 0) {
> > > >
> > > > > +			int offset = field * PIN_MUX_FIELD_SIZE;
> > > > > +			unsigned int mux = pins[i].mux;
> > > > > +			unsigned int mask = PIN_MUX_FIELD_MASK << offset;
> > > >
> > > > also please just declare everything at the top of the function - same
> > > > for value and field declarations above.
> > >
> > > No! Why should that be needed? It would be just a waste of stack
> > > space (except that recent compilers don't care abouyt this anyway),
> > > and keeping variables as localized as possible seems to be a good
> > > thing to me.
> > 
> > not when it sacrifices readability.  I'm looking for assignments and
> > finding 'unsigned'!  Either put a blank line between the declarations
> > and the rest of the code, or declare everything at the top of the
> > function, since it does nothing for the compiler (my preference is the
> > latter in this case).
> > 
> > Kim
> 
> All three of these declarations could be const, which may or may not
> help the compiler, but would be technically correct and document my
> intentions better.
> 
> This would not be possible if they where moved to the start of the
> function or if the declaration and assignments where split up in any
> other way.

Even with a blank line?

Either comply to the level of compiler effectiveness you seek, or make
the code more readable for the rest of us.

Kim