On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:12:17AM +0530, Nori, Sekhar wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 02:24:17, Mark A. Greer wrote:

> > I don't know Sekhar...  This looks like a step backwards to me with all
> > the #ifdef-ery.  Why not keep the code as it is and change the #ifdefs
> > that are already there (e.g., change the CONFIG_UI ones to CONFIG_FB,
> > etc)?
> 
> Mark,
> 
> The only new #ifdef the patch introduces is for MMC/SD. That is
> to make sure plugging in UI card does not get MMC to stop working.

You have taken #ifdef's that included/excluded code and replaced them with
#ifdef's that are a part of the runtime logic.  That's typically frowned
upon.  That's my issue.

> I think the patch actually improves readability by removing the
> existing #ifdefs present inside function body.

I disagree plus the existing ifdef's do what #ifdef's are supposed to do,
include or exclude chunks of code.  Now, in addition to indirectly
making them a part of the runtime logic, you added another level of
indirection so people have to figure out exactly how 'HAS_LCD', etc.
get defined (not difficult but another level just the same).

> The HAS_XXX constructs are not new and have been used in other
> DaVinci code. Have a look at support for DM644x EVM  here:
> 
> http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v2.6.31/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm644x-evm.c#L609

Past mistakes are not valid justifications for future ones.  :)

Mark
--

_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source

Reply via email to