Hi Wolfgang, On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > Dear Graeme Russ, > > In message <1313587343-3693-1-git-send-email-graeme.r...@gmail.com> you wrote: >> I have been thinking about the problem of the pesky init_sequence arrays >> and the inevitable #ifdefs and empty stub functions that result so I >> thought I'de have a crack at a more dynamic implementation. And like all >> good programmers, I stole the solution ;). This implementation is based >> on Linux's __initcall(fn) et. al. macros >> >> If this works cross-platform, we can finally move board_init_* into >> /lib/ - Wouldn't that be nice >> >> Thoughts?
> I explained this a number of times before: the current code was > designed to allow even for completely board specific init > sequences, by simply adding #define for the list of init functions > to the board config file - see for example here: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/33951/focus=36436 > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/72131/focus=72136 Hmm, this last thread includes this little gem: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/72131/focus=72136 <quote> Somewhat offtopic, but you could add a few weak empty dummy functions at strategic places in the board_X funcs. Any board that needs some extra init sequence could define the appropriate function which will replace the weak one. </quote> There is an incling that there may be a requirement to have more flexibility in the init sequence at the board level. Your response here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/72131/focus=72136 <quote> The idea is that boards that want such contrrol can redefine the whole init sequence list - adding what they really need, and omitting what they don't. Zero overhead. </quote> I would agree with Detlev - For a board to redefine the entire init sequence just to inject a single init function seems like gross overkill. Of course, this has already been realised and the solution was to #ifdef the init sequence array itself. I think we are starting to see that the init array methodology is getting a little restrictive and in order to break free, some rather unsavoury coding behaviour has started to creep in Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot