Alessandro Rubini wrote: >> I withdraw this patch. >> I will rethink this and come up with something better. > > I agree weak is better than ifdef. But the led situation on ARM isn't > really pleasant when you look in lib_arm/board.c . > > When I proposed a simplification of board.c back on Jul 22 ("[RFC] > arm/board.c: avoid ifdef using weak default functions", I noticed the > led approach and thought it would need cleanup (for example, by moving > out of board.c to led.c or something). However, the patch was > rejected by JC as he has initcalls as work in progress. > > Since we still missing the initcalls (as missing JC), could that patch > be reconsidered? I can rebase if there's any interest. >
Yes I am interested. Please rebase the RFC patch. Here is the link to the old RFC http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-July/057273.html Thanks, Tom > /alessandro _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot