On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:48:26AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 22 January 2018 at 09:36, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:57:41PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 07:49:41AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 01:46:46PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 05:29:56PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 03:07:58PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: >> On 16 January 2018 at 01:16, Maxime Ripard >> maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com wrote: >> > Allow boards and architectures to override the default environment lookup >> > code by overriding env_get_location. >> > >> > Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara andre.przywara@arm.com >> > Reviewed-by: Lukasz Majewski lukma@denx.de >> > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com >> > --- >> > env/env.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++- >> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> >> I still don't really understand why this needs to be a weak function. >> If the board knows the priority order, can it not put it into >> global_data? We could have a little u8 array of 4 items with a >> terminator? > > Sure that would be simpler, but that would also prevent us from doing > "smart" things based on data other than just whether the previous > environment is usable. Things based for example on a GPIO state, or a > custom algorithm to transition (or duplicate) the environment.
In that case the board could read the GPIO state, or the algorithm, and then set up the value.
Basically I am saying it could set up the priority order in advance of it being needed, rather than having a callback.
Aren't we kind of stuck here?
On the previous iterations, we already discussed this and Tom eventually told he was in favour of __weak functions, and the discussion stopped there. I assumed you were ok with it.
I'd really want to move forward on that. This is something that is really biting us *now* and I'd hate to miss yet another merge window because of debates like this.
Yes, I think this is where we want things to be weak, with a reasonable default. If we start to see that "everyone" does the same thing by and large we can re-evaluate.
Ok.
I've fixed the bug I mentionned the other day on IRC, should I send a PR?
Lets give Simon a chance to provide any other feedback here, or another argument to convince me that no, we don't want to have this abstracted by a weak function but instead ..., thanks!
I suspect there is a reason why this is better than what I propose. Perhaps when I try it out it will become apparent.
So let's go ahead and revisit later if we have new information.
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Thanks! Maxime, please re-spin with the bugfix (or wait another day or two for other feedback), repost and I'll take it in Thurs/Fri or so.