Hi Masahiro,
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:32:31 +0900, Masahiro Yamada yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com wrote:
Hello Albert
-v field="$1" \ -v select="$2" \ -F "$FS" \ - '($1 !~ /^#/ && $field == select) { print $1 }' \ + '($1 !~ /^#/ && $field == select) { print $7 }' \ boards.cfg } boards_by_arch() { boards_by_field 2 "$@" ; } boards_by_cpu() { boards_by_field 3 "$@" "[: \t]+" ; } -boards_by_soc() { boards_by_field 6 "$@" ; } +boards_by_soc() { boards_by_field 4 "$@" ; }TAB is also treated as a field speparator, so we should have taken the 8th field for Tegra whereas the 7th field for the other cpus.
(As per our discussion, 'tab' here should be 'colon')
Yes, I answerd so in my previous reply.
Not sure I am getting the logic here. Colon is *not* a field separator, precisely because it is not present on all lines; it is a sub-field separator. At this low level, the only field separator should be spaces.
Therefore, I would prefer boards_by_field() and board_by_cpu() to *not* handle colons and thus consider the CPU field as a whole even when it consists in a cpu:splcpu pair.
Yes. I think I already did this in my v1 patch.
-v cut="$3" \'{sub(cut,"",$field)}These lines split the pair into cpu and spl_cpu. I simply cut down spl_cpu because it is the same behaviour as before Commit 27af930e.
Splitting that pair and using either cpu or splcpu depending on whether building SPL or not should only happen when the CPU field is actually used, not fetched.
Can you try and provide a v2 patch (set) along these lines?
Sorry, I cannot understand what you mean.
I do understand that your patch wants to restore the behavior prior to 27af930e.
My problem is, while things worked prior to 27af930e, they were not done the right way, because boards_by_<field>() functions should not depend on the fact that a field contains a colon or not; they should only depend on the fact that fields are space-separated.
IOW, target integratorcp_cm1136 on line 46 in boards.cfg has 9 fields, and its CPU field is "arm1136"; and line 348, dalmore, *also* has 9 fields even though its CPU field is "armv7:arm720t".
The way the code is written now, board_by_field() has to do the job of board_by_cpu() and has to know the CPU field has colon-separated subfields. What should be done is, board_by_field should not even worry about colons at all, and it is board_by_cpu() which should know about CPU dubfields and treat them properly.
Is this clearer?
Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Amicalement,