Hi Wolfgang,
Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
In message OF5A3AF402.57EFBD26-ONC125767E.007A9CC5-C125767E.007B6427@transmode.se you wrote:
Yes. And all boards that don't need it will suffer from the increased memory footprint.
Sure, but I won't adding these extra call sites as an array of fptrs also add size? Since the new function as smaller than the current list, I would not be surprised if my function idea is smaller in total. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something?
I am just illustrating one way, one that will allow boards better control too as then can define this function as they like/need.
The idea is that boards that want such contrrol can redefine the whole init sequence list - adding what they really need, and omitting what they don't. Zero overhead.
A little bit late, but reading and pondering on Jockes suggestion, in the meantime I lean somewhat into the direction of Jockes init function. Probably the heaviest argument is that once a board comes along which redefines the whole init list, this will effectively be a snapshot of the then current init-list shuffled around for this specific board. Now when we add more board-independent sub-systems needed initialization, we will always have to remember that there are copies of this pretty central data structure needing to be updated also, which I do not think to be very nice.
Moreover, if we have such a central place, when adding stuff, we always now which user may have a problem with new code without going through all board configs.
Apart from that, if up to today no board actually did such a redefinition of the whole array, then one could argue that the chances for something like that are pretty slim. And even if such a thing happens, I rather like to see the exception for such a conceptually important thing in a central place rather than a board config file.
Just my 0.02 of your favourite currency Detlev