On 2/19/19 10:34 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 12:02 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > <snip> >> I have not read through the patches in any detail. I have read some of >> the code to try to understand the patches to the devicetree unit tests. >> So that may limit how valid my comments below are. > > No problem. > >> >> I found the code difficult to read in places where it should have been >> much simpler to read. Structuring the code in a pseudo object oriented >> style meant that everywhere in a code path that I encountered a dynamic >> function call, I had to go find where that dynamic function call was >> initialized (and being the cautious person that I am, verify that >> no where else was the value of that dynamic function call). With >> primitive vi and tags, that search would have instead just been a >> simple key press (or at worst a few keys) if hard coded function >> calls were done instead of dynamic function calls. In the code paths >> that I looked at, I did not see any case of a dynamic function being >> anything other than the value it was originally initialized as. >> There may be such cases, I did not read the entire patch set. There >> may also be cases envisioned in the architects mind of how this >> flexibility may be of future value. Dunno. > > Yeah, a lot of it is intended to make architecture specific > implementations and some other future work easier. Some of it is also > for testing purposes. Admittedly some is for neither reason, but given > the heavy usage elsewhere, I figured there was no harm since it was > all private internal usage anyway. >
Increasing the cost for me (and all the other potential code readers) to read the code is harm.
