On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 12:55 Wed 12 Nov , Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >> >> > Is this a good idea? It takes one centralized mess (that is deprecated, >> >> > but we don't have a good track record of death after deprecation) and >> >> > spreads it out over a bunch of files. Reminds me of cancer. :-( >> >> > >> >> > The centralized mess had no duplication of code, but a lot of #ifdef >> >> > ugly. This patch trades off the removal of most of the #ifdef ugly for >> >> > a lot of duplication. Which is the lesser of two evils? >> >> > >> >> > If you continue down the fragmentation path, would it work to keep the >> >> > primary bdinfo command (cmd_bdinfo.c) and add two weak function calls to >> >> > it that processor families and boards can hook to add in their extra >> >> > processor- and board-specific stuff? This may result in some >> >> > rearrangement of the print output (which I don't view as a problem, but >> >> > manual writers might not like it). It also results in some additional >> >> > obscurity since a processor/board porter needs to understand that there >> >> > is an additional hook to grab for customization. >> >> >> >> i think the split version proposed is a lot nicer than the current >> >> one, but going the route of having an arch hook would be best. i dont >> >> think we even need a weak function ... force every arch to implement >> >> *something*. >> > >> > It's the case >> > The idea is to allow soc and board to allow them to print more info >> >> so you have one hard arch hook and one weak board hook. every > > two weak hook
there's no point in making the arch one weak if every arch implements it. you simply add useless overhead. > to allow board AND soc to print more info which is exactly what i said -mike _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot