Dear Keith,
in message OF30CE6C3A.DAA104F1-ON072571E6.008079A0-072571E6.00823609@mck.us.ray.com you wrote:
Can you please update your patches using a current code base? I get a lot of rejects when applying your patches.
OK. I was hoping I could get away with not having to do that. Sorry!
Ummm... no. If new submitted patches throw too many and too big rejects I will not spend the effort for you.
- Clean up the Coding style (trailing white space in 65 files, C++ comments, indentation not by tabs, trailing empty lines, etc.)
I'll run all the sources through GNU indent.
I'm not sure if this is a good idea.
Please see the "Coding Standards" section in the README.
Perhaps the current git head does not have these statements in the Xilinx code in ./board/xilinx/xilinx_enet, for example. I'll check tonight. My source base does have them, though, but my code is a little old.
Please don't refer to the existing xilinx code as an example - it contains enough of problems.
- Please clean up the function headers and comments. Something like
this:
...
I tend to agree, but this is the Xilinx provided driver code. I can take not credit for it's quality :)
But you submit it for U-Boot. The Linux kernel folks have a long tradition of rejecting poor code, and I am tempted to do the same here.
BTW, Some of this code is already in U-Boot
Yes, and I am angry with myself that I didn't reject this when it was submitted. It just escaped my attention.
My plan was to put it into a common location after which anyone else using the code in ./boards/xilinx could switch over to the code in ./drivers
Is this the only change, i. e. no improvement in the quality of the code?
The idea was to use the driver source code as-is to avoid having to re-invent the wheel. I would expect that as more Xilinx FPGA based boards are added, the percentage use of the Xilinx driver code would increase.
We just discussed this in another case: I don;t want to have dead code in U-Boot, and I guess that 90% of what you're adding here is just code bloat and things that are not needed or referenced by any of the supported boards. But given the poor quality of the code it's time-consuming to check even this.
I'd really appreciate if you could spend some efforts on cleaning this up and bringing it into a more readable / usable form.
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk