Dear Mateusz Zalega, > On 09/06/13 13:40, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>>>> Moreover, the 'int index' should likely be unsigned int and the > >>>>>>> special value to init all controllers at once should probably then > >>>>>>> be 0xffffffff > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Despite our greatest ambitions, I don't think we're likely to use > >>>>>> more than 2^31-1 USB controllers at a time. Besides, negative > >>>>>> values look better both in code and debugger session. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thinking of it further, instead of using negative value here, like I > >>>>> mentioned above, why not make the "board_usb_init_type" into a field > >>>>> of flags , then add flag to init all controllers at once ? > >>>> > >>>> That's unnecessary. It wouldn't lead to any practical advantage over > >>>> existing interface. > >>> > >>> The advantage would be you won't be mixing two things (value AND value > >>> with special meaning) into the "index" parameter. > >> > >> Alright, provide a use-case. The only 'special' value we have now > >> doesn't interfere with controller index. Why write code or interfaces > >> that won't ever be used? > > > > Look, abusing the index field with a special value is moronic, especially > > if you > > I wouldn't call a de-facto standard abusive or moronic. > On the other hand, contributing to unnecessary code bloat would be. > > > _do_ have another field that can very well be turned into a block of > > flags > > Have you provided another use-case for that, as I asked? > > > instead of enum right next to it. > > > > function(int foo , enum bar) > > > > | ^ > > > > `---------' > > > > flags go > > > > here > > > > Then int foo can be turned into unsigned int foo _and_ be used for it's > > one singular purpose. Likewise, enum bar will now be "unsigned int > > flags" . Do you see the separation now ? > > Read your mail carefully - at this point I don't have any problems > understanding what you wish to do, but I see your API changes as > unjustified. Can you justify them without appealing to your authority > and maybe inserting a couple of ad-hominems here and there?
I suppose this thread can be concluded by droping the INIT_ALL stuff entirely. Afterall, we do not want to init _ALL_ ports at once, but we want to init them selectively. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot