On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD plagnioj@jcrosoft.com
apply after my precedent fix for cmd_bdinfo
Best Regards, J. common/Makefile | 1 - common/cmd_bdinfo.c | 447 ----------------------------------------------- include/common.h | 15 ++ lib_arm/Makefile | 1 + lib_arm/bdinfo.c | 69 ++++++++ lib_avr32/Makefile | 1 + lib_avr32/bdinfo.c | 62 +++++++ lib_blackfin/Makefile | 1 + lib_blackfin/bdinfo.c | 68 +++++++ lib_i386/Makefile | 1 + lib_i386/bdinfo.c | 62 +++++++ lib_m68k/Makefile | 1 + lib_m68k/bdinfo.c | 101 +++++++++++ lib_microblaze/Makefile | 1 + lib_microblaze/bdinfo.c | 65 +++++++ lib_mips/Makefile | 1 + lib_mips/bdinfo.c | 62 +++++++ lib_nios/Makefile | 1 + lib_nios/bdinfo.c | 61 +++++++ lib_nios2/Makefile | 1 + lib_nios2/bdinfo.c | 71 ++++++++ lib_ppc/Makefile | 1 + lib_ppc/bdinfo.c | 141 +++++++++++++++ lib_sh/Makefile | 1 + lib_sh/bdinfo.c | 62 +++++++ lib_sparc/Makefile | 13 +- lib_sparc/bdinfo.c | 78 ++++++++
Hi Jean-Christophe,
Is this a good idea? It takes one centralized mess (that is deprecated, but we don't have a good track record of death after deprecation) and spreads it out over a bunch of files. Reminds me of cancer. :-(
The centralized mess had no duplication of code, but a lot of #ifdef ugly. This patch trades off the removal of most of the #ifdef ugly for a lot of duplication. Which is the lesser of two evils?
If you continue down the fragmentation path, would it work to keep the primary bdinfo command (cmd_bdinfo.c) and add two weak function calls to it that processor families and boards can hook to add in their extra processor- and board-specific stuff? This may result in some rearrangement of the print output (which I don't view as a problem, but manual writers might not like it). It also results in some additional obscurity since a processor/board porter needs to understand that there is an additional hook to grab for customization.
i think the split version proposed is a lot nicer than the current one, but going the route of having an arch hook would be best. i dont think we even need a weak function ... force every arch to implement *something*. -mike