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 to allow board AND soc to print more info
Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
