On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 21:42:28 +0100 Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se> wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote on 2010/12/06 21:09:47: > > > > Dear Joakim Tjernlund, > > > > In message > > <1291658370-26367-1-git-send-email-joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se> you wrote: > > > init_sequence is an array with function pointers which > > > are really hard to follow when you need to debug this area. > > > Turn it into plain function calls instead which makes > > > the code a bit uglier but I find the simpler debugging > > > much more valuable. > > > > This is indeed much uglier. What exactly is your problem with > > debugging the existing code? > > Whenever I screw up so that one of the init funcs crashes, often without > any trace on the RS232 port you don't know which one. Single stepping > though the loop is cumbersome and not easy as BDI tends to > flush the cache when it stops so you loose your stack. > The other way is to look up one those funs and set a BP there and hope > for the best. Then repeat with the next function and so on. > Compare that with just setting a BP in the new init_sequence(), it is > fast and easy to move around. > > I don't think you have been chasing bugs in this area for a long time, > if you had, you would appreciate how easy it is with functions > compared with a bunch of function ptrs. > I don't think this is much uglier, just a bit, but far more > useful and I have a hard time buying into "beautiful trumps usefulness". I think it's easier with the function pointers -- if you want to debug a hang in that phase of the boot, just have the loop print the address of each function before it calls it. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
