On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 08:31:16PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > * Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070927 19:14]: > > No duplicated code whatsoever. Sure, this may not be too elegant > > (there's some room for improvements, though), but it's definately a > > _lot_ better than duplicating all those files. > > Another question: If that code needs to be duplicated for each of those > boards, is it generic (NB, SB, SUPERIO) code?
Parts of it, maybe. Didn't look closer, yet. Common component code should be moved into the respective directory/files, of course. But there'll still be many files/parts which are not common to the chipsets but rather common to some (very similar) mainboards. That can (and should IMO) be handled with a method similar to the one in my patch. In this case, we could even rename the A8N-E directory to 'a8n-base' or something, and make a8n-e, a8n5x, a8ne_fm_s be symlinks with only minor differences in targets/*. > > +if CONFIG_BOARD_A8N_E > > + > > ouch.. this is really nasty ;-) Yeah, not exactly elegant. I didn't figure out how to do something like if BOARD_NAME == "A8N-E" ... end in Config.lb, that would improve the code (number of variables) a bit. > And it will potentially make it hard for us in v3.. On the contrary, I think with kconfig we can handle this sort of things even more easily and elegantly. We even already have MAINBOARD_NAME etc. there, and those macros can be used in Makefiles as well as C code, so no problem at all. Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios