On Nov 30, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:01:28 -0600 Kumar Gala galak@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
diff --git a/common/hwconfig.c b/common/hwconfig.c index 3c9759f..da8d3ed 100644 --- a/common/hwconfig.c +++ b/common/hwconfig.c @@ -68,8 +68,8 @@ next: return NULL; }
-const char *cpu_hwconfig __attribute__((weak)); -const char *board_hwconfig __attribute__((weak)); +const char cpu_hwconfig[] __attribute__((weak)) = ""; +const char board_hwconfig[] __attribute__((weak)) = "";
#define HWCONFIG_PRE_RELOC_BUF_SIZE 128
@@ -96,13 +96,11 @@ static const char *__hwconfig(const char *opt, size_t *arglen) return hwconfig_parse(env_hwconfig, strlen(env_hwconfig), opt, ";", ':', arglen);
- if (board_hwconfig)
return hwconfig_parse(board_hwconfig, strlen(board_hwconfig),opt, ";", ':', arglen);
- return hwconfig_parse(board_hwconfig, strlen(board_hwconfig),
opt, ";", ':', arglen);
- if (cpu_hwconfig)
return hwconfig_parse(cpu_hwconfig, strlen(cpu_hwconfig),opt, ";", ':', arglen);
return hwconfig_parse(cpu_hwconfig, strlen(cpu_hwconfig),
opt, ";", ':', arglen);return NULL;
}
Hmm. "return x; return y; return NULL;"
Was the presence of a board hwconfig really intended to override, rather than add to, the cpu hwconfig? Should we check the return of the first hwconfig_parse to see if it found anything?
Yeah, I'll fix this - didn't even notice it before.
I'm going to make it: ret = hwconfig_parse(env_hwconfig, ...) if (ret) return ret; ret = hwconfig_parse(board_hwconfig, ...) if (ret) return ret;
return hwconfig_parse(cpu_hwconfig, ...);
- k