>
> Personally, I think refactoring should come first, along with a patch to
> hook up this routine into the system.  Right now, it's dangling unused.
>

It won't go unused for long :).


>
> I have been working hard to eliminate duplicated code, so I am not eager
> to see more entering the tree.  Others should take responsibility for
> handling this work when it is required; remember, all patch series
> should be finished before it's pushed.  That includes refactoring, which
> will be easier _before_ adding code.  If such changes would clearly be
> best for the code, then that seems like a clear reason for those patches
> to be part of a series.
>
> My recent NAND write/dump refactoring shows one way how this can be
> done: add new helpers, use them in existing code, add your new code to
> use them.  That may not be the order you do the development, and other
> approaches for structuring the series would work too.  In any case, I
> hope I have made a convincing argument for finding free time to factor
> facsimiles first.
>
> --Z
>

I'm starting to work on a possible refactoring for the code.  I'll post a
patch series for that soon.  I'm not sure if I would be skilled enough at
finding where the code can be used elsewhere in the code base.  I'll make an
attempt, but we'll see how bad/good that goes :).

I'm working on fixing up the original patch to compensate for some of the
stylistic issues and comments.

// Dean Glazeski
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development

Reply via email to