On Sunday 08 January 2012 12:42:02 Simon Glass wrote:
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 10 December 2011 16:08:05 Simon Glass wrote:
--- a/include/bootstage.h +++ b/include/bootstage.h
+static inline ulong bootstage_mark(enum bootstage_id id) {
show_boot_progress(-val);+#ifdef CONFIG_SHOW_BOOT_PROGRESS
show_boot_progress(id);+#endif
return 0;}
+static inline ulong bootstage_error(enum bootstage_id id) +{ +#ifdef CONFIG_SHOW_BOOT_PROGRESS
show_boot_progress(-id);+#endif
return 0;+}
why isn't show_boot_progress() just a stub when CONFIG_SHOW_BOOT_PROGRESS isn't defined ? then you don't have to protect the call sites.
show_boot_progress() has been part of U-Boot for a while. Quite a lot of boards define this function with the expectation that they can turn CONFIG_SHOW_BOOT_PROGRESS on and off independently. So If I do what you suggest I will break that expectation.
One fix would be to bracket all show_boot_progress() function implementations in the boards with CONFIG_SHOW_BOOT_PROGRESS, but I haven't done that.
it seemed like part of your clean up series was to merge show_boot_progress() into your new bootstage framework. in which case, we have full control over it now, and ifdef bracketing for it should go away ... -mike