Am 01.09.2012 08:23, schrieb Alexander Graf:
On 31.08.2012, at 22:45, Markus Armbruster <[email protected]> wrote:
Andreas Färber <[email protected]> writes:
static uint32_t dcr_read_pob (void *opaque, int dcrn)
...
Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <[email protected]>
We could alternatively leave besr[2] and access it with hardcoded 0..1.
Minimally invasive fix would be besr[dcrn != POB0_BESR0].
[...]
I don't think the change is important enough for these stylistic questions :).
I'll just apply it once I'm back to a real internet connection.
Alex
Of course I considered those minimally invasive solutions.
There was already other code in the same file which used besr0, besr1,
and the wrong statements were simple enough to justify a duplication.
If I were a compiler, I'd generate smaller and faster code with the
new code :-)
Cheers,
Stefan W.
